Bupropion SR for smoking cessation in smokers with cardiovascular disease: a multicentre, randomised study

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

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

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

Preventive Therapies in Peripheral Arterial Disease

Atherosclerosis, while initially deemed a bland proliferative process, is now recognized as a multifactorial-lipoprotein-mediated inflammation-driven pathway. With the rising incidence of atherosclerotic disease of the lower extremity arteries, the healthcare burden and clinical morbidity and mortality due to peripheral artery disease (PAD) are currently escalating. With a healthcare cost burden of over 21 billion USD and 200 million patients afflicted worldwide, accurate knowledge regarding the pathophysiology, presentation, and diagnosis of the disease is crucial. The role of lipoproteins and their remnants in atherosclerotic vessel occlusion and plaque formation and progression has been long established. This review paper discusses the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and presentation of PAD. PAD has been repeatedly noted to portend to poor cardiovascular and limb outcomes. We discuss major therapeutic avenues for the prevention of major cardiovascular adverse events and major limb adverse events in patients with PAD.

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.

The Ability to Look Beyond: The Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease

This paper offers a practical overview of the contemporary management of patients with peripheral arterial disease presenting intermittent claudication (IC), including clinical and instrumental diagnosis, risk factors modification, medical management, and evidence-based revascularization indications and techniques. Decision making represents a crucial element in the management of the patient with IC; for this, we think a review of this type could be very useful, especially for non-vascular specialists.

Comparison of Cardiovascular Safety for Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapies in a Population-Based Cohort in Australia

IMPORTANCE

Although concerns exist regarding a potential increased risk of cardiovascular events for smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, there is general consensus that any increased risk associated with their use would be outweighed by the benefits of smoking cessation; thus, clinical guidelines recommend that such pharmacotherapies be offered to everyone who wants to quit smoking. In the interest of minimizing risk to patients, prescribers need evidence indicating how these pharmacotherapies compare with one another in terms of cardiovascular safety.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among individuals initiating varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patches, or bupropion.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked pharmaceutical dispensing, hospital admissions, and death data was conducted in New South Wales, Australia. Participants included adults who were dispensed a prescription smoking cessation pharmacotherapy between 2008 and 2015 or between 2011 and 2015, depending on the availability of the pharmacotherapies being compared. Pairwise comparisons were conducted for risk of MACE among 122 932 varenicline vs 92 148 NRT initiators; 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators; and 102 817 NRT vs 6056 bupropion initiators.

EXPOSURE

First course of the smoking cessation pharmacotherapy of interest.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACE. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with high-dimensional propensity scores was used to account for potential confounding. Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust variance were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Data were analyzed January 24, 2019, to September 1, 2021.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of included individuals ranged from 41.9 (14.2) to 49.8 (14.9) years, and the proportion of women ranged from 42.8% (52 702 of 123 128) to 52.2% (53 693 of 102 913). The comparison of 122 932 varenicline initiators and 92 148 NRT patch initiators showed no difference in the risk of MACE (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07) nor in the risk of the secondary outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.21) and stroke (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45-1.14). However, decreased risk of cardiovascular death was found among varenicline initiators (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79). The results of comparisons involving bupropion were inconclusive owing to wide confidence intervals (eg, risk of MACE: 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.53-1.41]; 102 817 NRT patch vs 6056 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.39-1.62]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The finding of this cohort study that varenicline and NRT patch use have similar risk of MACE suggests that varenicline, the most efficacious smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, may be prescribed instead of NRT patches without increasing risk of major cardiovascular events. Further large-scale studies of the cardiovascular safety of varenicline and NRT relative to bupropion are needed.

Cardiac Complications of Common Drugs of Abuse: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Management

Cardiovascular complications from drugs of abuse are becoming more apparent due to increased usage worldwide. Substance abuse can cause both acute and chronic cardiovascular complications and is increasing in prevalence especially in young adults. These substances contribute to the development of acute coronary syndrome, type II myocardial injury, arrhythmias, cardiomyopathies and have numerous other cardiovascular complications. Although no screening guidelines exist, clinical awareness of these potential complications and their prevention, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment are critically important. Management of cardiovascular disease should be coupled with appropriate social and mental health interventions to provide sustained clinical benefit. The higher the number of substances used recreationally, the greater the risk of premature heart disease. Epidemiological studies showed that 1 in 5 young adults misuse several substances and often start using at younger ages with a greater risk for adverse health outcomes over the long-term. The aim of this review is to highlight the basic epidemiology, cardiac complications, and disease-specific treatment options of commonly abused substances including methamphetamine, cocaine, alcohol, anabolic-androgenic steroids, cannabis, and tobacco.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

FUTURE WORK

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

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

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cardiovascular safety of naltrexone and bupropion therapy: Systematic review and meta-analyses

Despite being approved for clinical use, evidence of cardiovascular safety (CV) is lacking for treatment with bupropion, naltrexone, or their combination (B-N). The purpose of the study is to determine the relationship between these treatments and the risk of major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE). Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCT) evaluating bupropion, naltrexone, or B-N versus control with reported incidence of MACE. The meta-analysis included 12 RCTs, 69% for weight loss and 29% for smoking cessation, with 19,176 patients and 7354 patient-years who were randomized to an active treatment (bupropion [n = 2965] or B-N [n = 6980] or naltrexone [n = 249]) versus control (placebo [n = 6968] or nicotine patch [n = 2014]). The mean age was 54 ± 8 years (55% female), and the baseline BMI was 32 ± 5 kg/m² . The additive network meta-analysis model for random effects showed no association between bupropion, B-N, or naltrexone and MACE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90 [95%CI 0.65-1.25], p = 0.52; OR = 0.97 [95%CI 0.75-1.24], p = 0.79; OR = 1.08 [95%CI 0.71-1.63], p = 0.73, respectively; I² = 0%, p = 0.86). Meta-regression analyses showed no significant association between MACE and potential confounders from RCT demographic disparities (p = 0.58). The statistical power (post hoc two-tailed) for non-inferiority was 91%, giving a strong probability of validity. Naltrexone, bupropion, or B-N is not associated with the incidence of MACE as compared with placebo.

Defining and Measuring Abstinence in Clinical Trials of Smoking Cessation Interventions: An Updated Review

BACKGROUND

Changes in tobacco products, use patterns, and assessment technology in the last 15 years led the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) Treatment Research Network to call for an update to the 2003 SRNT recommendations for assessing abstinence in clinical trials of smoking cessation interventions.

METHODS

The SRNT Treatment Research Network convened a group of investigators with decades of experience in conducting tobacco treatment clinical trials. To arrive at the updated recommendations, the authors reviewed the recommendations of the prior SRNT Workgroup as well as current literature. Ten additional experts in the field provided feedback on this paper and these recommendations.

RESULTS

With respect to defining abstinence, the authors recommend: (1) continuing to use the definition of no use of combustible tobacco products (regardless of use of noncombustible tobacco products [e.g., snus] and alternative products [e.g., e-cigarettes]) and collecting additional data to permit alternate abstinence definitions; (2) no use of combustible or smokeless tobacco products; and (3) no use of combustible or smokeless tobacco products or alternative products, as appropriate for the research question being addressed. The authors also recommend reporting point prevalence and prolonged abstinence at multiple timepoints (end of treatment, ≥3 months after the end of treatment, and ≥6 months postquit or posttreatment initiation).

CONCLUSIONS

Defining abstinence requires specification of which products a user must abstain from using, the type of abstinence (i.e., point prevalence or continuous), and the duration of abstinence. These recommendations are intended to serve as guidelines for investigators as they collect the necessary data to accurately describe participants' abstinence during smoking cessation clinical trials.

IMPLICATIONS

This paper provides updated recommendations for defining abstinence in the context of smoking cessation treatment clinical trials.

The Cardiovascular Effects of Newer Antidepressants in Older Adults and Those With or At High Risk for Cardiovascular Diseases

Depression is common in older adults and those with cardiovascular disease. Although selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors generally have been shown to be safe to treat depression in these patients, it is important to identify additional antidepressants when selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are not effective. This qualitative narrative review summarizes what is known about the cardiovascular side effects of some of the newer antidepressants. Twelve novel non-selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants were identified from the literature: venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, milnacipran, levomilnacipran, mirtazapine, bupropion, vilazodone, vortioxetine, agomelatine, moclobemide, and ketamine-esketamine. A search restricted to publications written in English was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar with the following search criteria: the specific antidepressant AND (QT OR QTc OR "heart rate" OR "heart rate variability" OR "hypertension" OR "orthostatic hypotension" OR "cardiovascular outcomes" OR "arrhythmia" OR "myocardial infarction" OR "cardiovascular mortality") AND (geriatric OR "older adults" OR "late life depression" OR "cardiovascular disease" OR "hospitalized" OR "hospitalized"). The recommended use, dosing ranges, cardiovascular effects, and general advantages and disadvantages of each of the drugs are discussed. Levomilnacipran and vilazodone have not received enough study to judge their safety in older patients or in those with, or at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. There is at least some evidence for possible adverse events with each of the other newer antidepressants that could be of concern in these patients. Nevertheless, with careful administration and attention to the potential adverse reactions for each drug, these may provide safe effective alternatives for older adults and patients with cardiovascular disease who do not respond to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants. However, more research on the safety and efficacy of these drugs in these specific patient populations is urgently needed.

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

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

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.

Relation between serum cotinine levels and trophic lesions in patients with critical limb ischemia: a pilot study

Aim: To evaluate if smoking, quantified by the serum cotinine levels, is related to the evolution of patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI).Method: A pilot study was conducted on CLI patients who addressed at the Second Surgery Clinic of the Emergency County Hospital, Cluj-Napoca, Romania between November 2015 and December 2016. The sample of patients was split into two groups using the threshold of 15 ng/mL for the serum level of cotinine (low cotinine level - LCL vs. high cotinine level - HCL). Furthermore, the ROC analysis was conducted to identify the threshold of cotinine level able to discriminate between CLI patients with and without trophic lesions.Results: The mean age of patients was 60.7 ± 10.5 years with a significantly higher percentage of male patients (84%). A significant association was identified between urban origin and serum cotinine level, which is related to the increased number of cigarettes smoked per day among urban participants. Excepting necrectomy and toe disarticulation, no differences were found between LCL and HCL group regarding symptoms, signs or comorbidities. In smokers with CLI (38/43), a serum cotinine cut-off of 9.765 ng/mL was observed on eight out of 10 CLI patients with necrectomy and five out of 28 patients without necrectomy.Conclusion: Our study showed higher serum cotinine levels associated with a higher number of smoked cigarettes and necrectomy in patients with CLI. The serum cotinine could be a fair screening test for necrectomy in smokers CLI patients.

Psychopharmacology and Cardiovascular Disease

This review discusses common mental health disorders and their associations with cardiovascular disease risks. Commonly found mental health disorders include depression, anxiety, and personality types. The link between depression and cardiovascular disease mortality has been established. Depression is also common in patients with heart failure. In addition to discussing psychological disorders, a review of psychotropic drugs is also included. Drugs are described for therapy for depression and anxiety, as well as associations with cardiovascular drug-drug interactions. Drug-drug interactions are more common and potentially dangerous in elderly patients, in whom the conditions often coexist. The most common drug-drug interactions involve the P450 system of enzymes.

Modelling continuous abstinence rates over time from clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

It is useful, for theoretical and practical reasons, to be able to specify functions for continuous abstinence over time in smoking cessation attempts. This study aimed to find the best-fitting models of mean proportion abstinent with different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies up to 52 weeks from the quit date.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological treatments to aid smoking cessation. For comparability, we selected trials that provided 12 weeks of treatment. Continuous abstinence rates for each treatment at each follow-up point in trials were extracted along with methodological details of the trial. Data points for each pharmacotherapy at each follow-up point were aggregated where the total across contributing studies included at least 1000 participants per data point. Continuous abstinence curves were modelled using a range of different functions from the quit date to 52-week follow-up. Models were compared for fit using R2 and Bayesian information criterion (BIC).

RESULTS

Studies meeting our selection criteria covered three pharmacotherapies [varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and bupropion] and placebo. Power functions provided the best fit (R2  > 0.99, BIC < 17.0) to continuous abstinence curves from the target quit date in all cases except for varenicline, where a logarithmic function described the curve best (R2  = 0.99, BIC = 21.2). At 52 weeks, abstinence rates were 22.5% (23.0% modelled) for varenicline, 16.7% (16.0% modelled) for bupropion, 13.0% (12.4% modelled) for NRT and 8.3% (8.9% modelled) for placebo. For varenicline, bupropion, NRT and placebo, respectively, 55.9, 65.0, 62.3 and 56.5% of participants who were abstinent at the end of treatment were still abstinent at 52 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean continuous abstinence rates up to 52 weeks from initiation of smoking cessation attempts in clinical trials can be modelled using simple power functions for placebo, nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion and a logarithmic function for varenicline. This allows accurate prediction of abstinence rates from any time point to any other time point up to 52 weeks.

Smoking and diabetes: dangerous liaisons and confusing relationships

The combined harmful effects of cigarette smoking and hyperglycemia can accelerate vascular damage in patients with diabetes who smoke, as is well known. Can smoking cause diabetes? What are the effects of smoking on macro and microvascular complications? Now growing evidence indicates that regular smokers are at risk of developing incident diabetes. Since the prevalence rates of smoking in patients with diabetes are relatively similar to those of the general population, it is essential to address the main modifiable risk factor of smoking to prevent the onset of diabetes and delay the development of its complications. Quitting smoking shows clear benefits in terms of reducing or slowing the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. Does quitting smoking decrease the incidence of diabetes and its progression? What are the effects of quitting smoking on complications? The current evidence does not seem to unequivocally suggest a positive role for quitting in patients with diabetes. Quitting smoking has also been shown to have a negative impact on body weight, glycemic control and subsequent increased risk of new-onset diabetes. Moreover, its role on microvascular complications of the disease is unclear. What are the current smoking cessation treatments, and which ones are better for patients with diabetes? Stopping smoking may be of value for diabetes prevention and management of the disease and its macrovascular and microvascular complications. Unfortunately, achieving long-lasting abstinence is not easy and novel approaches for managing these patients are needed. This narrative review examines the evidence on the impact of smoking and smoking cessation in patients with diabetes and particularly in type 2 diabetes mellitus and its complications. In addition, management options and potential future directions will be discussed.

Cardiovascular Safety of Varenicline, Bupropion, and Nicotine Patch in Smokers: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Quitting smoking is enhanced by the use of pharmacotherapies, but concerns have been raised regarding the cardiovascular safety of such medications.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative cardiovascular safety risk of smoking cessation treatments.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A double-blind, randomized, triple-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled trial (Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study [EAGLES]) and its nontreatment extension trial was conducted at 140 multinational centers. Smokers, with or without established psychiatric diagnoses, who received at least 1 dose of study medication (n = 8058), as well as a subset of those who completed 12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks of follow up and agreed to be followed up for an additional 28 weeks (n = 4595), were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, 1 mg twice daily; bupropion hydrochloride, 150 mg twice daily; and nicotine replacement therapy, 21-mg/d patch with tapering.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the time to development of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE: cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) during treatment; secondary end points were the occurrence of MACE and other pertinent cardiovascular events (MACE+: MACE or new-onset or worsening peripheral vascular disease requiring intervention, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina).

RESULTS

Of the 8058 participants, 3553 (44.1%) were male (mean [SD] age, 46.5 [12.3] years). The incidence of cardiovascular events during treatment and follow-up was low (<0.5% for MACE; <0.8% for MACE+) and did not differ significantly by treatment. No significant treatment differences were observed in time to cardiovascular events, blood pressure, or heart rate. There was no significant difference in time to onset of MACE for either varenicline or bupropion treatment vs placebo (varenicline: hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.05-1.68 and bupropion: hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.10-2.50).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

No evidence that the use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies increased the risk of serious cardiovascular adverse events during or after treatment was observed. The findings of EAGLES and its extension trial provide further evidence that smoking cessation medications do not increase the risk of serious cardiovascular events in the general population of smokers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01574703.

Effect of the Microstructure and Distribution of the Second Phase on the Stress Corrosion Cracking of Biomedical Mg-Zn-Zr-xSr Alloys

The stress corrosion cracking (SCC) properties of the bi-directional forged (BDF) Mg-4Zn-0.6Zr-xSr (ZK40-xSr, x = 0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6 wt %) alloys were studied by the slow strain rate tensile (SSRT) testing in modified simulated body fluid (m-SBF). The average grain size of the BDF alloys were approximately two orders of magnitude smaller than those of the as-cast alloys. However, grain refinement increased the hydrogen embrittlement effect, leading to a higher SCC susceptibility in the BDF ZK40-0/0.4Sr alloys. Apart from the grain refinements effect, the forging process also changed the distribution of second phase from the net-like shape along the grain boundary to a uniformly isolated island shape in the BDF alloys. The SCC susceptibility of the BDF ZK40-1.2/1.6Sr alloys were lower than those of the as-cast alloys. The change of distribution of the second phase suppressed the adverse effect of Sr on the SCC susceptibility in high Sr–containing magnesium alloys. The results indicated the stress corrosion behavior of magnesium alloys was related to the average grain size of matrix and the distribution and shape of the second phase.

Clinical Effects of Cigarette Smoking: Epidemiologic Impact and Review of Pharmacotherapy Options

Cigarette smoking-a crucial modifiable risk factor for organ system diseases and cancer-remains prevalent in the United States and globally. In this literature review, we aim to summarize the epidemiology of cigarette smoking and tobacco use in the United States, pharmacology of nicotine-the active constituent of tobacco, and health consequence of cigarette smoking. This article also reviews behavioral and pharmacologic interventions for cigarette smokers and provides cost estimates for approved pharmacologic interventions in the United States. A literature search was conducted on Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, ClinicalKey, and PubMed databases using the following headings in combination or separately: cigarette smoking, tobacco smoking, epidemiology in the United States, health consequences of cigarette smoking, pharmacologic therapy for cigarette smoking, and non-pharmacologic therapy for cigarette smoking. This review found that efficacious non-pharmacologic interventions and pharmacologic therapy are available for cessation of cigarette smoking. Given the availability of efficacious interventions for cigarette smoking cessation, concerted efforts should be made by healthcare providers and public health professionals to promote smoking cessation as a valuable approach for reducing non-smokers' exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

Interventions for smoking cessation in patients admitted with Acute Coronary Syndrome: a review

Tobacco smoking contributes to about six million deaths per year and is predicted to increase in the future. Several pharmacological interventions are used for smoking cessation. Trials using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) showed inconclusive results. Furthermore, three trials using bupropion in patients admitted with ACS failed to show improvement in smoking cessation compared with placebo. Interestingly, only one trial using varenicline was successful in achieving smoking abstinence in the acute setting. With regard to behavioural interventions, a meta-analysis found that telephone counselling was successful in both the acute and stable settings, with greater effect in the acute setting. The best results for smoking cessation were found in trials that used a combination of pharmacological and behavioural interventions. The objective of this report is to review the results of studies on interventions used for smoking cessation after an ACS.

Income-related inequality in smoking cessation among adult patients with cardiovascular disease: a 5-year follow-up of an angiography intervention in Luxembourg

BACKGROUND

Smoking contributes to cardiovascular diseases (CVD), a leading cause of death and a large source of healthcare costs in Western countries. We examined the association between income and smoking cessation among smokers who underwent coronary angiography at the National Institute for Cardiac Surgery and Interventional Cardiology in Luxembourg.

METHODS

Data were derived from a follow-up study conducted in 2013/2014 among 4391 patients (of which 1001 patients were smokers) at the time of coronary angiography in 2008/2009. Four logistic regression models were applied. In three models, the predictor was income and the covariates were sex, age, nationality, marital status, diagnosis, body mass, physical activity, and awareness of tobacco as a cardiovascular (CV) risk factor. In the other model, the predictor was an interaction term composed of income and awareness of tobacco as a CV risk factor; the other variables were covariates.

RESULTS

Among patients who were current smokers at baseline, 43.2% were current smokers at follow-up and 56.8% had quit smoking. In the multivariate logistic models, quitting smoking was associated with income even after controlling for socio-demographic, diagnostic, and behavioural risk factors. In the full model, the odds of quitting smoking among patients in the two highest income categories remained significant when compared to patients in the lowest income category: odds ratio (OR) = 2.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-6.1 and OR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.5, respectively. In the full model with an interaction term, quitting smoking was only associated with income when patients knew tobacco was a CV risk factor. The odds of smoking cessation were 5.62 (95% CI: 2.13-14.86) and 3.65 (95% CI: 1.51-8.86) times for patients with annual incomes of 36,000-53,999€ and ≥54,000€, respectively), compared to those for patients with an annual income of <36,000€.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the influence of income on behaviours regarding CVD risk factors after a major CVD event. Patients in the highest income groups were more likely to quit smoking, although only when they were aware of tobacco as a CV risk factor. Therefore, intervention strategies targeting lower income groups should be implemented in major health facilities.

2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. These guidelines, based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a cornerstone of quality cardiovascular care.

In response to reports from the Institute of Medicine1 ,2 and a mandate to evaluate new knowledge and maintain relevance at the point of care, the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines (Task Force) modified its methodology.3 –5 The relationships among guidelines, data standards, appropriate use criteria, and performance measures are addressed elsewhere.5

2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. These guidelines, based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a cornerstone of quality cardiovascular care.

In response to reports from the Institute of Medicine1 ,2 and a mandate to evaluate new knowledge and maintain relevance at the point of care, the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines (Task Force) modified its methodology.3 –5 The relationships among guidelines, data standards, appropriate use criteria, and performance measures are addressed elsewhere.5

Lifestyle Modification in Secondary Prevention: Beyond Pharmacotherapy

Despite significant advances in medical technology and pharmacology, cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a major contributor to health care expenses and the leading cause of death in the United States. Patients with established CVD and their health care providers are challenged with achieving cardiovascular risk reduction to decrease the likelihood of recurrent cardiovascular events. This "secondary prevention" can be achieved, in part, through adherence to prescribed pharmacotherapies that favorably modify major coronary risk factors (ie, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and obesity). However, lifestyle modification can also be helpful in this regard, providing independent and additive benefits to the associated reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, physicians and other health care providers should routinely counsel their coronary patients to engage in structured exercise and increased lifestyle physical activity, consume a heart-healthy diet, quit smoking and avoid secondhand smoke, and purposefully address psychosocial stressors that may elevate cardiovascular risk. These lifestyle interventions, either as an adjunct to medication therapy or independently in those patients where medications may be poorly tolerated, cost prohibitive, or ineffective, can significantly decrease cardiovascular mortality and the risk of recurrent cardiac events.

Predictors of smoking cessation in patients admitted for acute coronary heart disease

Background

Smoking cessation is probably the most important single action after a coronary event. In order to increase the effectiveness of smoking cessation programs, it is important to have knowledge of the predictors of smoking cessation. Further, it is unknown whether smoking cessation programs have impact on these predictors.

Methods

Data were obtained from a randomized controlled trial of smoking cessation intervention in 240 smokers aged less than 76 years admitted for myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or cardiac bypass surgery. Baseline characteristics were prospectively recorded. Smoking cessation was determined by self report and biochemical verification at 12 months follow-up.

Results

In multivariate logistic regression analysis, a high level of nicotine addiction, low level of self-confidence in quitting and having previous coronary heart disease were significant negative predictors of smoking cessation at 12 months follow-up. Having previous coronary heart disease and a diagnosis other than acute myocardial infarction as a reason for admission were important negative predictors of abstinence in the usual care group, in contrast to the intervention group, although this did not reach a level of significance in the subgroup interaction analyses. A high level of nicotine addiction was a strong negative predictor in both groups.

Conclusion

A high level of nicotine addiction is an important negative predictor of smoking cessation, even within an individualized smoking cessation program. Smoking cessation intervention seems to be especially effective in patients with previous coronary heart disease and in patients with unstable angina or coronary artery bypass surgery, compared to usual care.

Efficacy and Safety of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease

Background—

Although the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation interventions are well established, their efficacy and safety in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and behavioral smoking cessation interventions in CVD patients via a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Methods and Results—

EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and behavioral therapies in CVD patients. Outcomes of interest were smoking abstinence at 6 and 12 months, defined using the most rigorous criteria reported. Data were pooled across studies for direct comparisons using random-effects models. Network meta-analysis using a graph-theoretical approach was used to generate the indirect comparisons. Seven pharmacotherapy randomized controlled trials (n=2809) and 17 behavioral intervention randomized controlled trials (n=4666) met our inclusion criteria. Our network meta-analysis revealed that varenicline (relative risk [RR]: 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34–5.21) and bupropion (RR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01–2.01) were associated with greater abstinence than placebo. The evidence about nicotine replacement therapies was inconclusive (RR: 1.22; 95% CI, 0.72–2.06). Telephone therapy (RR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.15–1.88) and individual counseling (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.17–2.28) were both more efficacious than usual care, whereas in-hospital behavioral interventions were not (RR: 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78–1.43).

Conclusions—

Our meta-analysis suggests varenicline and bupropion, as well as individual and telephone counseling, are efficacious for smoking cessation in CVD patients.

Combination Therapies for Smoking Cessation: A Hierarchical Bayesian Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Treatment guidelines recommend the use of combination therapies for smoking cessation, particularly behavioral therapy (BT) as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy. However, these guidelines rely on previous reviews with important limitations. This study's objective was to evaluate the efficacy of combination therapies compared with monotherapies, using the most rigorous data available.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacotherapies, BTs, or both were conducted. The Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases were systematically searched from inception to July 2015. Inclusion was restricted to RCTs reporting biochemically validated abstinence at 12 months. Direct and indirect comparisons were made in 2015 between therapies using hierarchical Bayesian models.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The search identified 123 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria (60,774 participants), and data from 115 (57,851 participants) were meta-analyzed. Varenicline with BT increased abstinence more than other combinations of a pharmacotherapy with BT (varenicline versus bupropion: OR=1.56, 95% credible interval [CrI]=1.07, 2.34; varenicline versus nicotine patch: OR=1.65, 95% CrI=1.10, 2.51; varenicline versus short-acting nicotine-replacement therapies: OR=1.68, 95% CrI=1.15, 2.53). Adding BT to any pharmacotherapy compared with pharmacotherapy alone was inconclusive, owing to wide CrIs (OR=1.17, CrI=0.60, 2.12). Nicotine patch with short-acting nicotine-replacement therapy appears safe and increases abstinence versus nicotine-replacement monotherapy (OR=1.63, CrI=1.06, 3.03). Data are limited concerning other pharmacotherapy combinations and their safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that combination therapy benefits may be less than previously thought. Combined with BT, varenicline increases abstinence more than other pharmacotherapy with BT combinations.

Cardiovascular risks associated with smoking: a review for clinicians

The cardiovascular consequences of cigarette smoking may not be as readily recognized as the adverse respiratory consequences. Smoking results in sudden death, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, worsened outcomes after angioplasty or bypass surgery, cerebrovascular disease, aortic aneurysm, peripheral vascular disease, increased risk of complications of hypertension and impotence. Physicians should encourage and help all their smoking patients to quit. Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation is one of the most cost-effective healthcare interventions and should be offered to all dependent smokers. Both nicotine replacement and bupropion have been shown to be well tolerated in populations with cardiovascular disease.

Are Smoking Cessation Treatments Associated with Suicidality Risk? An Overview

Risk of suicidality during smoking cessation treatment is an important, but often overlooked, aspect of nicotine addiction research and treatment. We explore the relationship between smoking cessation interventions and suicidality and explore common treatments, their associated risks, and effectiveness in promoting smoking reduction and abstinence. Although active smokers have been reported to have twofold to threefold increased risk of suicidality when compared to nonsmokers,1–4 research regarding the safest way to stop smoking does not always provide clear guidelines for practitioners wishing to advise their patients regarding smoking cessation strategies. In this article, we review pharmacological and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) options that are available for people seeking to quit smoking, focusing on the relationship between the ability of these therapies to reduce smoking behavior and promote abstinence and suicidality risks as assessed by reported suicidality on validated measures, reports of suicidal ideation, behaviors, actual attempts, or completed suicides. Pharmacotherapies such as varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement, and CBTs, including contextual CBT interventions, have been found to help reduce smoking rates and promote and maintain abstinence. Suicidality risks, while present when trying to quit smoking, do not appear to demonstrate a consistent or significant rise associated with use of any particular smoking cessation pharmacotherapy or CBT/contextual CBT intervention reviewed.

Cessation treatment adherence and smoking abstinence in patients after acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Previous trials examining the use of bupropion for smoking cessation therapy after myocardial infarction (MI) have been inconclusive. To understand better the observed lack of effectiveness of bupropion in this population, we examined abstinence rates by level of adherence across treatment groups.

METHODS

We used data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of bupropion in smokers (n = 388) hospitalized with MI to study the association of interest. Patients were classified as being fully adherent if they reported taking 2 pills/d; partially adherent if they reported 0, 1, and/or 2 pills/d; and nonadherent if they reported 0 and/or 1 pill/d throughout the 9-week treatment period. Abstinence was assessed by 7-day biochemically validated self-report at 4 and 9 weeks and 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were fully adherent to the study medication (66 bupropion and 90 placebo), 149 were partially adherent (76 and 73, respectively), and 83 were nonadherent (46 and 37, respectively). Regardless of treatment group, patients who were fully or partially adherent reported greater abstinence than did nonadherent patients. Among partially adherent patients, bupropion conferred an important benefit at 12 months (% difference 13.3, 95% CI 1.3-25.3). At 12 months, patients who were fully adherent were more likely to be abstinent compared with those who were nonadherent (adjusted odds ratio 7.6, 95% CI 3.2-17.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to study medication, regardless of assigned treatment, is associated with a substantial increase in abstinence. Patients who are motivated to quit smoking should be targeted for smoking cessation treatment after MI.

Exploring Issues of Comorbid Conditions in People Who Smoke

Smoking affects comorbid disease outcomes, and patients with comorbid conditions may have unique characteristics that are important to consider when treating tobacco use. However, addressing tobacco in patients being treated for comorbid conditions is not a consistent practice. Recognizing the need for a "call-to-action" to address tobacco use in people with comorbid conditions, the Tobacco Treatment Network within the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) convened a Comorbidities Workgroup to explore the relationship between smoking and comorbid disease to identify common themes including: the harms associated with continued tobacco use, the frequency of comorbid disease and tobacco use, the potential effect of comorbid disease on the ability to quit tobacco use, the association between tobacco use and suboptimal disease-specific treatment response, and evidence regarding potential approaches to improve addressing tobacco use in patients with comorbid disease. Five candidate conditions (psychiatric, cancer, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and human immunodeficiency virus infected patients) were explored. Across comorbid conditions, smoking adversely affects treatment efficacy and promotes other adverse health conditions. People with comorbid conditions who smoke are motivated to quit and respond to evidence-based smoking cessation treatments. However, tobacco cessation is not regularly incorporated into the clinical care of many individuals with comorbidities. Optimal strategies for addressing tobacco use within each comorbid disease are also not well defined. Further work is needed to disseminate evidence-based care into clinical practice for smokers with comorbid disease and addiction research should consider comorbid conditions as an important construct to explore.

IMPLICATIONS

This article explores how physical and psychiatric conditions may interact in the treatment of tobacco dependence, and discusses the need for smoking cessation as a critical component of comorbid condition management. Five common comorbid domains-psychiatric, cancer, pulmonary, cardiovascular, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-are highlighted to illustrate how these different conditions might interact with smoking with respect to prevalence and harm, motivation to quit, and cessation treatment utilization and success.

Influence of smoking cessation drugs on blood pressure and heart rate in patients with cardiovascular disease or high risk score: real life setting

Background

Smoking is the most important reversible cardiovascular risk factor. It is well established that quitting smoking reduces coronary events. However, on several occasions, the cardiovascular safety of smoking cessation drugs has been questioned. Our goal is to evaluate the effects of smoking cessation drugs on blood pressure and heart rate in patients from a smoking cessation service in a cardiology hospital.

Methods

We examined the PAF database (Smoking Cessation Assistance Program database) between January 2008 and March 2014. We analyzed data from 900 patients who were compliant with the treatment (50.5 % male, average age 53 ± 17 years). The most frequent clinical diagnoses were coronary artery disease (25.2 %), hypertension (57.2 %), and diabetes (13.4 %). Blood pressure, heart rate, and carbon monoxide (CO) concentration in exhaled air were analyzed at consecutive visits during the first 45 days of treatment (mean visits - 3). Analysis of repeated measures was used for the statistical analysis (p < 0.05).

Results

Two hundred seventy one patients used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) alone, 81 used bupropion alone, 154 used varenicline alone, 283 used NRT plus bupropion and 111 used bupropion plus varenicline. For all smoking cessation drugs, used alone or in combination, no increase occurred in the average value of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR). Significant reductions in CO concentrations occurred in all smoking cessation drug groups.

Conclusion

Smoking cessation drugs used in monotherapy or in combined regimens did not influence systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR) in this group of patients during the observation period.

Eficacia y seguridad del uso de medicamentos para la cesación de la adicción al tabaco: revisión de guías de práctica clínica

<p><strong>Objetivo </strong>Revisar la eficacia y seguridad de medicamentos para cesación del tabaquismo en el contexto de construcción de guías de práctica clínica (GPC).</p><p><strong>Métodos</strong> Revisión sistemática de GPC para adaptación mediante ADAPTE. Los desenlaces fueron cesación ≥6 meses y seguridad de las intervenciones. Las GPC se calificaron por pares con DELBI. Se extrajeron resultados de estudios agregativos incluidos en las guías seleccionadas.</p><p><strong>Resultados </strong>Los fármacos duplican la cesación comparados con placebo (tasas de 25,0 % hasta 27,0 % al combinarse con consejería). Los mayores incrementos en cesación se obtienen con ansiolíticos y antidepresivos (8,7% a 19,4%), y los menores con terapia de reemplazo nicotínico –TRN- (5,2% a 12,9%). La nortriptilina tiene eficacia similar al bupropion (aproximadamente 10,0 %). Con limitadas excepciones (parche e inhalador, tabletas y bupropion), las combinaciones de medicamentos no incrementan la abstinencia.</p><p><strong>Conclusiones </strong>TRN, vareniclina, bupropion y nortriptilina son eficaces para dejar de fumar. Las combinaciones de medicamentos requieren más evidencia y deberían restringirse a personas con alta dependencia o con falla terapéutica inicial. Serían deseables análisis de costo-efectividad para valorar implementación de programas en países en desarrollo.</p>

Psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2008. Smoking increases the risk of developing atherosclerosis but also acute thrombotic events. Quitting smoking is potentially the most effective secondary prevention measure and improves prognosis after a cardiac event, but more than half of the patients continue to smoke, and improved cessation aids are urgently required.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to examine the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease in short-term (6 to 12 month follow-up) and long-term (more than 12 months). Moderators of treatment effects (i.e. intervention types, treatment dose, methodological criteria) were used for stratification.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and PSYNDEX were searched from the start of the database to January 2013. This is an update of the initial search in 2003. Results were supplemented by cross-checking references, and handsearches in selected journals and systematic reviews. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with CHD with a minimum follow-up of 6 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Abstinence rates were computed according to an intention to treat analysis if possible, or if not according to completer analysis results only. Subgroups of specific intervention strategies were analysed separately. The impact of study quality on efficacy was studied in a moderator analysis. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 40 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria in total (21 trials were new in this update, 5 new trials contributed to long-term results (more than 12 months)). Interventions consist of behavioural therapeutic approaches, telephone support and self-help material and were either focused on smoking cessation alone or addressed several risk factors (eg. obesity, inactivity and smoking). The trials mostly included older male patients with CHD, predominantly myocardial infarction (MI). After an initial selection of studies three trials with implausible large effects of RR > 5 which contributed to substantial heterogeneity were excluded. Overall there was a positive effect of interventions on abstinence after 6 to 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.32, I² 54%; abstinence rate treatment group = 46%, abstinence rate control group 37.4%), but heterogeneity between trials was substantial. Studies with validated assessment of smoking status at follow-up had similar efficacy (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39) to non-validated trials (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Studies were stratified by intervention strategy and intensity of the intervention. Clustering reduced heterogeneity, although many trials used more than one type of intervention. The RRs for different strategies were similar (behavioural therapies RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.34, I² 40%; telephone support RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.30, I² 44%; self-help RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.33, I² 40%). More intense interventions (any initial contact plus follow-up over one month) showed increased quit rates (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.40, I² 58%) whereas brief interventions (either one single initial contact lasting less than an hour with no follow-up, one or more contacts in total over an hour with no follow-up or any initial contact plus follow-up of less than one months) did not appear effective (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12, I² 0%). Seven trials had long-term follow-up (over 12 months), and did not show any benefits. Adverse side effects were not reported in any trial. These findings are based on studies with rather low risk of selection bias but high risk of detection bias (namely unblinded or non validated assessment of smoking status).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial smoking cessation interventions are effective in promoting abstinence up to 1 year, provided they are of sufficient duration. After one year, the studies showed favourable effects of smoking cessation intervention, but more studies including cost-effectiveness analyses are needed. Further studies should also analyse the additional benefit of a psychosocial intervention strategy to pharmacological therapy (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy) compared with pharmacological treatment alone and investigate economic outcomes.

Cardiovascular adverse events associated with smoking-cessation pharmacotherapies

Smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable deaths in the USA, accounting for one in every five deaths every year, and cardiovascular (CV) disease remains the leading cause of those deaths. Hence, there is increasing awareness to quit smoking among the public and counseling plays an important role in smoking cessation. There are different pharmacological methods to help quit smoking that includes nicotine replacement products available over the counter, including patch, gum, and lozenges, to prescription medications, such as bupropion and varenicline. There have been reports of both nonserious and serious adverse CV events associated with the use of these different pharmacological methods, especially varenicline, which has been gaining media attention recently. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the various pharmacotherapies used in smoking cessation and analyzed the evidence behind these CV events reported with these therapeutic agents.

Cardiovascular stimulant actions of bupropion in comparison to cocaine in the rat

Stimulants are banned in competition by the World Anti-Doping Agency, except for a small number of therapeutic agents subject to monitoring, including bupropion. We have examined the potency of bupropion in comparison with two agents banned in competition, adrafinil and modafinil, and with cocaine and desipramine as blockers of the noradrenaline re-uptake transporter in peripheral tissues of the rat. For studies in vivo, the pressor response to noradrenaline in the anaesthetized rat was studied. Cocaine, desipramine and bupropion at doses of 0.1, 0.3 and 1mg/kg, respectively, significantly increased the pressor response to noradrenaline. Overall, cocaine and desipramine were approximately 2-5 times more potent than bupropion in vivo in the rat. Adrafinil and modafinil (both 3mg/kg) did not significantly affect the pressor response. Bupropion was chosen for further study. In 1Hz paced rat right ventricular strips, bupropion (30μM) significantly increased the potency of noradrenaline at increasing the force of contraction. In rat vas deferens, bupropion and cocaine produced concentration-dependent increases in the contractile response to nerve stimulation, and cocaine was 11 times more potent than bupropion. Since bupropion is used clinically in doses of up to 300mg, it is likely that bupropion has actions at the noradrenaline transporter, and thus cardiovascular stimulant actions, in clinical doses. This may explain findings of increased exercise performance with bupropion.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: pharmacological principles and clinical practice

Strategies for assisting smoking cessation include behavioural counselling to enhance motivation and to support attempts to quit and pharmacological intervention to reduce nicotine reinforcement and withdrawal from nicotine. Three drugs are currently used as first line pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and varenicline. Compared with placebo, the drug effect varies from 2.27 (95% CI 2.02, 2.55) for varenicline, 1.69 (95% CI 1.53, 1.85) for bupropion and 1.60 (95% CI 1.53, 1.68) for any form of nicotine replacement therapy. Despite some controversy regarding the safety of bupropion and varenicline, regulatory agencies consider these drugs as having a favourable benefit/risk profile. However, given the high rate of psychiatric comorbidity in dependent smokers, practitioners should closely monitor patients for neuropsychiatric symptoms. Second-line pharmacotherapies include nortriptyline and clonidine. This review also offers an overview of pipeline developments and issues related to smoking cessation in special populations such as persons with psychiatric comorbidity and pregnant and adolescent smokers.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

There are at least three reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Secondly, nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Finally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways (e.g. inhibiting monoamine oxidase) or receptors (e.g. blockade of nicotinic-cholinergic receptors) underlying nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the effect and safety of antidepressant medications to aid long-term smoking cessation. The medications include bupropion; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; lazabemide; moclobemide; nortriptyline; paroxetine; S-Adenosyl-L-Methionine (SAMe); selegiline; sertraline; St. John's wort; tryptophan; venlafaxine; and zimeledine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized trials comparing antidepressant medications to placebo or an alternative pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. We also included trials comparing different doses, using pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse or re-initiate smoking cessation or to help smokers reduce cigarette consumption. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as a risk ratio (RR). 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.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four new trials were identified since the 2009 update, bringing the total number of included trials to 90. There were 65 trials of bupropion and ten trials of nortriptyline, with the majority at low or unclear risk of bias. There was high quality evidence that, when used as the sole pharmacotherapy, bupropion significantly increased long-term cessation (44 trials, N = 13,728, risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49 to 1.76). There was moderate quality evidence, limited by a relatively small number of trials and participants, that nortriptyline also significantly increased long-term cessation when used as the sole pharmacotherapy (six trials, N = 975, RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78). There is insufficient evidence that adding bupropion (12 trials, N = 3487, RR 1.9, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51) or nortriptyline (4 trials, N = 1644, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.55) to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) provides an additional long-term benefit. Based on a limited amount of data from direct comparisons, bupropion and nortriptyline appear to be equally effective and of similar efficacy to NRT (bupropion versus nortriptyline 3 trials, N = 417, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; bupropion versus NRT 8 trials, N = 4096, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; no direct comparisons between nortriptyline and NRT). Pooled results from four trials comparing bupropion to varenicline showed significantly lower quitting with bupropion than with varenicline (N = 1810, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83). Meta-analyses did not detect a significant increase in the rate of serious adverse events amongst participants taking bupropion, though the confidence interval only narrowly missed statistical significance (33 trials, N = 9631, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.69). There is a risk of about 1 in 1000 of seizures associated with bupropion use. Bupropion has been associated with suicide risk, but whether this is causal is unclear. Nortriptyline has the potential for serious side-effects, but none have been seen in the few small trials for smoking cessation.There was no evidence of a significant effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on their own (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.22, N = 1594; 2 trials fluoxetine, 1 paroxetine, 1 sertraline) or as an adjunct to NRT (3 trials of fluoxetine, N = 466, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.82). Significant effects were also not detected for monoamine oxidase inhibitors (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.79, N = 827; 1 trial moclobemide, 5 selegiline), the atypical antidepressant venlafaxine (1 trial, N = 147, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.32), the herbal therapy St John's wort (hypericum) (2 trials, N = 261, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53), or the dietary supplement SAMe (1 trial, N = 120, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.07).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline aid long-term smoking cessation. Adverse events with either medication appear to rarely be serious or lead to stopping medication. Evidence suggests that the mode of action of bupropion and nortriptyline is independent of their antidepressant effect and that they are of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement. Evidence also suggests that bupropion is less effective than varenicline, but further research is needed to confirm this finding. Evidence suggests that neither selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine) nor monoamine oxidase inhibitors aid cessation.

Cardiovascular events associated with smoking cessation pharmacotherapies: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Stopping smoking is associated with many important improvements in health and quality of life. The use of cessation medications is recommended to increase the likelihood of quitting. However, there is historical and renewed concern that smoking cessation therapies may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease events associated within the quitting period. We aimed to examine whether the 3 licensed smoking cessation therapies-nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline-were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease events using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched 10 electronic databases, were in communication with authors of published randomized, clinical trials (RCTs), and accessed internal US Food and Drug Administration reports. We included any RCT of the 3 treatments that reported cardiovascular disease outcomes. Among 63 eligible RCTs involving 21 nicotine replacement therapy RCTs, 28 bupropion RCTs, and 18 varenicline RCTs, we found no increase in the risk of all cardiovascular disease events with bupropion (relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.73) or varenicline (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.79-2.23). There was an elevated risk associated with nicotine replacement therapy that was driven predominantly by less serious events (RR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.39-3.82). When we examined major adverse cardiovascular events, we found a protective effect with bupropion (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85) and no clear evidence of harm with varenicline (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.66-2.66) or nicotine replacement therapy (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.26-4.30).

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation therapies do not appear to raise the risk of serious cardiovascular disease events.