Efficacy of a nicotine nasal spray in smoking cessation: a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial

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.

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.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Nicotinic Restoration of Excitatory Neuroplasticity Is Linked to Improved Implicit Motor Learning Skills in Deprived Smokers

Nicotine has been shown to modulate neuroplasticity, cognition, and learning processes in smokers and non-smokers. A possible mechanism for its effect on learning and memory formation is its impact on long-term depression and long-term potentiation (LTP). Nicotine abstinence in smokers is often correlated with impaired cognitive performance. As neuroplasticity is closely connected to learning and memory formation, we aimed to explore the effect of nicotine spray administration in deprived smokers on paired-associative stimulation (PAS25)-induced neuroplasticity and on performance of the serial reaction time task (SRTT), a sequential motor learning paradigm. Deprived smokers (n = 12) under placebo medication displayed reduced excitatory neuroplasticity induced by PAS25. Plasticity was restored by nicotine spray administration. Likewise, SRTT-performance improved after nicotine spray administration compared to placebo administration (n = 19). The results indicate a restitutional effect of nicotine spray in deprived smokers on both: LTP-like neuroplasticity and motor learning. These results present a possible explanation for persistence of nicotine addiction and probability of relapse.

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.

Rapid effect of nicotine intake on neuroplasticity in non-smoking humans

In various studies nicotine has shown to alter cognitive functions in non-smoking subjects. The physiological basis for these effects might be nicotine-generated modulation of cortical structure, excitability, and activity, as mainly described in animal experiments. In accordance, a recently conducted study demonstrated that application of nicotine for hours via nicotine patch in non-smoking humans alters the effects of neuroplasticity-inducing non-invasive brain stimulation techniques on cortical excitability. Specifically, nicotine abolished inhibitory plasticity independent from the focality of the stimulation protocol. While nicotine prevented also the establishment of non-focal facilitatory plasticity, focal synapse-specific facilitatory plasticity was enhanced. These results agree with a focusing effect of prolonged nicotine application on facilitatory plasticity. However, since nicotine induces rapid adaption processes of its receptors, this scenario might differ from the effect of nicotine in cigarette smoking. Thus in this study we aimed to gain further insight in the mechanism of nicotine on plasticity by exploring the effect of nicotine spray on non-focal and focal plasticity-inducing protocols in non-smoking subjects, a fast-acting agent better comparable to cigarette smoking. Focal, synapse-specific plasticity was induced by paired associative stimulation (PAS), while non-focal plasticity was elicited by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Forty eight non-smokers received nicotine spray respectively placebo combined with one of the following protocols (anodal tDCS, cathodal tDCS, PAS-25, and PAS-10). Corticospinal excitability was monitored via motor-evoked potentials elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Nicotine spray abolished facilitatory plasticity irrespective of focality and PAS-10-induced excitability diminution, while tDCS-derived excitability reduction was delayed and weakened. Nicotine spray had thus a clear effect on neuroplasticity in non-smoking subjects. However, the effects of nicotine spray differ clearly from those of prolonged nicotine application, which might be due to missing adaptive nicotinic receptor alterations. These results enhance our knowledge about the dynamic impact of nicotine on plasticity, which might be related to its heterogenous effect on cognition.

Does the use of ingredients added to tobacco increase cigarette addictiveness?: a detailed analysis

The possibility that ingredients added to tobacco contribute to the addictiveness of cigarette smoking was evaluated by comparing cessation rates of smokers of traditional blended cigarettes to those of smokers of flue-cured cigarettes. Such a comparison is a valid means of assessing cigarette ingredients as traditional blended cigarettes contain ingredients (>20), whereas flue-cured cigarettes contain no or very few ingredients. Separate analysis of 108 treatment groups and 108 control groups from randomized clinical trials of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) were performed by multiple logistic regressions. The results of these analyses demonstrated slightly higher quit rates for smokers of blended cigarettes (OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.70-2.13 and OR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.14-1.53 for treatment and control groups, respectively). The control groups were also investigated using classification tree analysis from which no difference in quit rates were observed for smokers of either type of cigarette. Further analyses showed that studies that utilized a high level of psychological support in conjunction with NRT produced at least a two-fold increase in quit rates compared to studies that utilized a low level of psychological support. It was also demonstrated that there is a large difference when results were reported by sustained abstinence compared to point prevalence. Additional meta-analyses found the pooled OR for NRT treatment to be in exact agreement with a recent review that assessed the effectiveness of NRT. Overall these results strongly suggest that ingredients used in the manufacture of traditional blended cigarettes do not increase the inherent addictiveness of cigarettes.

Markov model of smoking cessation

Survival functions from smoking cessation interventions are described by a three-state Markov model. On quitting, smokers transit through a state of withdrawal characterized by a high rate of relapse, and then into a more secure state of long-term abstinence. The Markov model embodies the dynamic nature of the cessation/relapse process; it permits stronger inference to long-term abstinence rates, provides measures of treatment efficacy, describes the outcomes of new quit attempts, and suggests mechanisms for the survival process.

Nicotine competes with a visual stimulus for control of conditioned responding

Environmental stimuli that co-occur with tobacco use come to evoke drug-related conditioned responses (CRs) that appear involved in continued use of nicotine-containing products. In rats, nicotine can serve as a conditional stimulus (CS) for non-drug unconditioned stimuli (USs), prompting the question of whether the nicotine CS can compete with, or overshadow, a non-drug environmental stimulus for control of a CR. In Experiment 1, male Sprague-Dawley rats were assigned to a group [0, 0.01, 0.03, 0.045, or 0.06 mg nicotine (base)/kg/infusion]. During each session, there were 10 intravenous infusions followed by a 30-second houselight to form a compound CS. At light offset there was 4-second access to sucrose. For Experiment 2, groups were nicotine (0.03 mg/kg/infusion) + light compound paired, nicotine + light compound unpaired, nicotine paired and light unpaired, and nicotine unpaired and light paired. Paired stimuli were presented with sucrose similar to Experiment 1. Unpaired stimuli were temporally separated from sucrose. Following acquisition, tests of nicotine and light alone were conducted by intermixing non-reinforced trails into training sessions. Nicotine dose-dependently overshadowed the light CS as shown by reduced light control of conditioned responding with higher doses. The nicotine, light, and nicotine + light compound had to be paired with sucrose to evoke a CR. These results demonstrate nicotine overshadows an exteroceptive visual stimulus. Because exteroceptive stimuli are often the focus of cue-exposure therapy, such competition may help begin to explain the marginal effectiveness of these therapies.

Adverse events associated with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation. A systematic review and meta-analysis of one hundred and twenty studies involving 177,390 individuals

Background

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is the most common form of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy and has proven efficacy for the treatment of tobacco dependence. Although expectations of mild adverse effects have been observed to be independent predictors of reduced motivation to use NRT, adverse effects associated with NRT have not been precisely quantified.

Objective

A systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of NRT versus inert controls and all observational studies to determine the magnitude of reported adverse effects with NRT.

Methods

Searches of 10 electronic databases from inception to November 2009 were conducted. Study selection and data extraction were carried out independently in duplicate. RCTs were pooled using a random effects method with Odds Ratio [OR] as the effect measure, while proportions were pooled from observational studies. A meta-regression analysis was applied to examine whether the nicotine patch is associated with different adverse effects from those common to orally administered NRT.

Results

Ninety-two RCTs involving 32,185 participants and 28 observational studies involving 145, 205 participants were identified. Pooled RCT evidence of varying NRT formulations found an increased risk of heart palpitations and chest pains (OR 2.06, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.51-2.82, P < 0.001); nausea and vomiting (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.37-2.04, P < 0.001); gastrointestinal complaints (OR 1.54, 95% CI, 1.25-1.89, P < 0.001); and insomnia (OR 1.42, 95% CI, 1.21-1.66, P < 0.001). Pooled evidence specific to the NRT patch found an increase in skin irritations (OR 2.80, 95% CO, 2.28-3.24, P < 0.001). Orally administered NRT was associated with mouth and throat soreness (OR 1.87, 95% CI, 1.36-2.57, P < 0.001); mouth ulcers (OR 1.49, 95% CI, 1.05-2.20, P < 0.001); hiccoughs (OR 7.68, 95% CI, 4.59-12.85, P < 0.001) and coughing (OR 2.89, 95% CI, 1.92-4.33, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant increase in anxiety or depressive symptoms associated with NRT use. Non-comparative observational studies demonstrated the prevalence of these events in a broad population.

Conclusion

The use of NRT is associated with a variety of side effects. In addition to counseling and medical monitoring, clinicians should inform patients of potential side effects which are associated with the use of NRT for the treatment of tobacco dependence.

Human behavioral pharmacology, past, present, and future: symposium presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Behavioral Pharmacology Society

A symposium held at the 50th annual meeting of the Behavioral Pharmacology Society in May 2007 reviewed progress in the human behavioral pharmacology of drug abuse. Studies on drug self-administration in humans are reviewed that assessed reinforcing and subjective effects of drugs of abuse. The close parallels observed between studies in humans and laboratory animals using similar behavioral techniques have broadened our understanding of the complex nature of the pharmacological and behavioral factors controlling drug self-administration. The symposium also addressed the role that individual differences, such as sex, personality, and genotype play in determining the extent of self-administration of illicit drugs in human populations. Knowledge of how these factors influence human drug self-administration has helped validate similar differences observed in laboratory animals. In recognition that drug self-administration is but one of many choices available in the lives of humans, the symposium addressed the ways in which choice behavior can be studied in humans. These choice studies in human drug abusers have opened up new and exciting avenues of research in laboratory animals. Finally, the symposium reviewed behavioral pharmacology studies conducted in drug abuse treatment settings and the therapeutic benefits that have emerged from these studies.

Effects of nicotine patch or nasal spray on nicotine and cotinine concentrations in pregnant smokers

OBJECTIVE

To examine the short-term effects of the nicotine patch or nasal spray on measures of nicotine exposure, withdrawal symptoms, and on maternal and fetal heart rates in pregnant smokers.

METHODS

We measured nicotine/cotinine concentrations and maternal and fetal heart rates during an 8-h monitoring session while smoking and again after 4 days of nicotine patch (15 mg/16 h), nasal spray (recommended regimen of 24 doses per day), or placebo treatment. Nicotine withdrawal symptoms were assessed daily.

RESULTS

Twenty-one subjects, who smoked an average of 17 cigarettes per day, completed both monitoring sessions. Nicotine concentrations decreased from baseline smoking concentrations in all groups (p = 0.002). Percent change in cotinine concentration differed across groups (reduction = 77% with placebo, 70% with nasal spray, and 48% with patch; p = 0.029). Maternal heart rate decreased in the placebo and nasal spray groups compared with the patch group (p = 0.021). The baseline fetal heart rate decreased in the placebo group throughout the second monitoring session, but increased slightly in the patch and nasal spray groups. The treatment by time interaction was marginally significant (p = 0.052). Daily, cigarette craving decreased more in the patch versus the other groups (p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Nicotine patch and nasal spray reduce maternal nicotine exposure compared with smoking and may be effective for smoking cessation.

Efficacy of pharmacotherapies for short-term smoking abstinance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation has important immediate health benefits. The comparative short-term effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions is not well known. We aimed to determine the relative effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline at 4 weeks post-target quit date.

METHODS

We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to October 2008). We selected randomized clinical trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for our primary outcome of abstinence from smoking at at-least 4 weeks post-target quit date, with biochemical confirmation. We conducted random-effects odds ratio (OR) meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and calculated indirect comparisons.

RESULTS

We combined a total of 101 trials evaluating delivery of NRT versus inert controls at approximately 4 weeks post-target quit date (total n = 31,321). The pooled overall OR is OR 2.05 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.89-2.23, P =< 0.0001). We pooled data from 31 bupropion trials contributing a total n of 11,118 participants and found a pooled OR of 2.25 (95% CI, 1.94-2.62, P =< 0.0001). We evaluated 9 varenicline trials compared to placebo. Our pooled estimate for cessation at 4 weeks post-target quit date found a pooled OR of 3.16 (95% CI, 2.55-3.91, P =< 0.0001). Two trials evaluated head to head comparisons of varenicline and bupropion and found a pooled estimate of OR 1.86 (95% CI, 1.49-2.33, P =< 0.0001 at 4 weeks post-target quit date. Indirect comparisons were: NRT and bupropion, OR, 1.09, 95% CI, 0.93-1.31, P = 0.28; varenicline and NRT, OR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.23-1.96, P = 0.0002; and, varenicline and bupropion, OR 1.40, 95% CI, 1.08-1.85, P = 0.01.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapeutic interventions are effective for increasing smoking abstinence rates in the short-term.

Treating tobacco dependence in a medical setting

The US Public Health Service Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence 2008 Update emphasizes tobacco use as a chronic medical disorder; highlights both behavioral counseling and the use of 1 or more of the 7 approved medications; and points out the utility, efficacy, and reach of telephone quitlines. The treatment of users of smokeless tobacco continues to be less than optimal. Although providing evidence-based treatment for tobacco- dependent patients is a challenge for busy physicians, a team approach including trained and certified tobacco treatment specialists (TTS) provides an efficient treatment model. TTS represent a new and growing part of the health care team and hold great potential for expanding the collective tobacco treatment expertise in the medical setting. The effective treatment of tobacco dependence frequently requires tailoring, and often intensifying, interventions (both counseling and pharmacotherapy) to meet the needs of the individual patient.

Use of nicotine substitute prescribed at hourly plus ab libitum intake or ad libitum for heavy smokers willing to quit: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of instructional guidance in the regular use of use nicotine nasal spray (NNS) on the true use of NNS during the first three weeks of smoking cessation for heavy smokers who are willing to quit.

METHODS

This randomized, open, controlled trial included 50 patients who were heavy smokers, were willing to quit, and attending an academic outpatient clinic in Western Switzerland. Patients were randomised to instruction on NNS use as "ad libitum" (administration whenever cravings appear; control group) or to use NNS when craving appears and at least every hour when awake (intervention group). Intakes were monitored using an electronic device fixed in the spray unit (MDILog) during the first three weeks of use. Self reported abstinence from smoking at six months was confirmed by expired-air carbon monoxide. Using intention-to-treat analysis, random-effect GLS regression was used to calculate the mean difference of daily doses between groups controlling for lack of independence between measures from the same individual.

RESULTS

One patient was lost to follow-up. At baseline randomization, the group receiving instruction to use NNS hourly included more women, patients with previous desires to quit, and patients with more psychiatric comorbidities and less somatic complaints compared to the group instructed to use NNS with cravings (group imbalance). Both groups self-administered more than the daily recommended dosage of 8 uses. Mean daily usage was 13.6 dose/day and 11.1 dose/day for the group instructed to use NNS hourly and with cravings, respectively. Adjusting for baseline imbalance, the increased daily doses in the intervention group (hourly use) remained nonsignificant compared to ad libitum use (-0.5 dose/day; CI 95% -6.2; 5.3, from day 1 to day 7; and 2.3 dose/day; CI 95% -5.4; 10.0, from day 8 to day 21). Instructing patients to use the NNS daily had no effect on smoking cessation at six months (RR = 0.69; CI 95% 0.34; 1.39).

CONCLUSION

Heavy smokers willing to quit use NNS frequently, regardless of the instructions given. Recommending the use of NNS only when craving appears for heavy smokers willing to quit seems acceptable compared to prescribing hourly administration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00861276.

Open-Label Study of Craving in Smokers With Schizophrenia Using Nicotine Nasal Spray Compared to Nicotine Patch

RATIONALE: Nicotine nasal spray (NNS) may be better for relieving acute cigarette cravings than other nicotine replacement and it may help smokers with schizophrenia because of its rapid onset of action. OBJECTIVES: We tested whether NNS was more effective than a nicotine patch (NP; 21 mg) in reducing cue-induced craving during a 3-day abstinence. METHODS: Twenty-five smokers with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (SA) were randomized to open-label NNS or NP treatment after baseline measures of craving were assessed. NNS users were instructed to dose at a minimum of 1/hour and up to a maximum of 40/day. Averages from a 4-item visual analogue scale (need, urge, want to smoke, crave a cigarette) measured craving. RESULTS: Five subjects who smoked (4 NP, 1 NNS) were excluded, leaving 21 (11 NP, 10 NNS) for analyses. No differences were detected between groups on baseline craving. On day 3, NNS users reported significantly less craving in response to smoking cues compared to NP users (mean craving scores: NNS, 7.0; NP, 20.3; p = .014). A repeated measure ANCOVA demonstrated significantly reduced craving in the NNS group compared to the NP group from baseline to day 3 (F = 5.09; p = .037). NNS users took an average of 20 doses/day, and NNS was rated as being as easy to use as NP. CONCLUSIONS: The potential utility of NNS in smokers with schizophrenia supports the need for placebo-controlled studies.

A randomized trial of nicotine nasal spray in adolescent smokers

OBJECTIVES

Nicotine nasal spray has been 1 of the most successful forms of nicotine-replacement therapy in adult populations. The nasal sprayer has not been studied in adolescent smokers. The objective of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility and utility of using nicotine nasal spray for adolescent smokers who wanted to quit smoking.

METHODS

Forty adolescent smokers who were between 15 and 18 years of age and smoked >/=5 cigarettes daily for at least 6 months were recruited from several San Francisco Bay area schools from 2005 to 2007. Using a randomized, open-label, 12-week trial, adolescent smokers were assigned to receive either weekly counseling alone (control) for 8 weeks or 8 weeks of counseling along with 6 weeks of nicotine nasal spray. Self-reported smoking abstinence was verified by both expired-air carbon monoxide and salivary cotinine.

RESULTS

There was no difference in cessation rates, the numbers of cigarettes smoked per day, or cotinine levels at 12 weeks. Fifty-seven percent of participants stopped using their spray after only 1 week. The most commonly reported adverse effect was nasal irritation and burning (34.8%) followed by complaints about the taste and smell (13%).

CONCLUSIONS

The unpleasant adverse effects, poor adherence, and consequent lack of efficacy observed in our pilot study do not support the use of nicotine nasal spray as an adjunct to counseling for adolescent smokers who wish to quit.

Therapeutic options and challenges for substances of abuse

Addiction to substances continues to be a significant public health concern in the United States. The following review of current pharmacological treatments discusses a range of substances: nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, and opioids. The goal is to provide an overview of currently available and new pharmacological treatments for substance use disorders, while also addressing the pharmacothera-peutic challenges remaining. The significant advances in pharmacotherapy have had limited utilization, however. For example, naltrexone for alcoholism is infrequently prescribed, buprenorphine for opiates still has relatively few qualified prescribers, and stimulants have no Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacotherapy. These pharmacotherapies are needed, with the rate of even the relatively uncommon abuse of opiates now rising sharply.

Smoking cessation: significance and implications for children

A number of people in the USA who are still current smokers remain a staggering figure. Although this number continues to decrease, there is still a considerable amount of second-hand smoke. More importantly and for the purpose of this review, the detrimental effects of passive smoke in children is significant. We will not review the specific health effects of passive smoke, but for pediatricians, in particular, it is important to place in perspective programs that are available to influence the parents of children to stop smoking. Indeed, approximately 25% of all children aged 3-11 live in a household with at least one smoker. Despite the increasing number of communities in the states that have instituted restrictions or complete bans on smoking in the workplace and in many public areas, the principal site of smoking remains the home.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (~3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons.

Results

We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55–1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60–1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37–1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41–1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77–2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10–2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72–2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20–6.42).

Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12–4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65–5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22–2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16–2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17–2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22–2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies.

Conclusion

NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.

Tailoring nicotine replacement therapy: rationale and potential approaches

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is an effective treatment for smoking cessation, but as with all such pharmacotherapies, the majority of smokers who use NRT products do not stop smoking or remain abstinent long term. Treatment outcome is affected by a range of individual-specific factors, as well as the pharmacokinetic profile of each NRT formulation. This has led to speculation that abstinence rates could be improved if NRT treatments were individually tailored to best match each individual's needs and preferences. There are also populations for whom special product and dosage considerations are warranted to maximise treatment safety.This paper reviews the rationale for NRT treatment, standard dose recommendations and recommendations for how to best match NRT treatment to the specific needs of individual smokers. We also review emerging evidence that genetic profiling may one day be a useful consideration for tailoring NRT treatment.

Pharmacogenetics and nicotine addiction treatment

This review focuses on the current status of, and future directions for, pharmacogenetic research on nicotine dependence and smoking cessation treatment. Pharmacological treatment involving nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion for nicotine addiction and smoking cessation has been shown to be efficacious when provided in combination with behavioral support. Cessation rates remain somewhat modest, however, and one possibility is that success rates may be enhanced by offering treatments tailored to an individual's genotype. Nonetheless, research on this issue remains in its infancy, and although the scope for individualized treatment tailored to genotype is promising, there are substantial practical, ethical and social considerations that must be addressed before such research is translated into clinical practice.

A randomised control study of a fully automated internet based smoking cessation programme

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project was to test the short term (90 days) efficacy of an automated behavioural intervention for smoking cessation, the "1-2-3 Smokefree" programme, delivered via an internet website.

DESIGN

Randomised control trial. Subjects surveyed at baseline, immediately post-intervention, and 90 days later.

SETTINGS

The study and the intervention occurred entirely via the internet site. Subjects were recruited primarily via worksites, which referred potential subjects to the website.

SUBJECTS

The 351 qualifying subjects were notified of the study via their worksite and required to have internet access. Additionally, subjects were required to be over 18 years of age, smoke cigarettes, and be interested in quitting smoking in the next 30 days. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned individually to treatment or control condition by computer algorithm.

INTERVENTION

The intervention consisted of a video based internet site that presented current strategies for smoking cessation and motivational materials tailored to the user's race/ethnicity, sex, and age. Control subjects received nothing for 90 days and were then allowed access to the programme.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at 90 day follow up.

RESULTS

At follow up, the cessation rate at 90 days was 24.1% (n = 21) for the treatment group and 8.2% (n = 9) for the control group (p = 0.002). Using an intent-to-treat model, 12.3% (n = 21) of the treatment group were abstinent, compared to 5.0% (n = 9) in the control group (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

These evaluation results suggest that a smoking cessation programme, with at least short term efficacy, can be successfully delivered via the internet.

Distress tolerance and early smoking lapse

A significant percentage of smokers attempting cessation lapse to smoking within a matter of days and very few of these individuals recover to achieve abstinence. Current models of relapse devote insufficient attention to this phenomenon of early smoking lapse. Furthermore, studies attempting to relate severity of nicotine withdrawal symptoms to short-term smoking cessation outcomes have yielded equivocal results. The authors argue that how one reacts to the discomfort of nicotine withdrawal is a more promising avenue of investigation than severity of withdrawal and that inability to tolerate the distress of nicotine withdrawal and associated negative affect is a key factor in early smoking lapse and subsequent relapse. Theoretical and clinical implications of distress tolerance in smoking cessation are discussed and the development of a specialized and novel behavioral distress tolerance treatment for early smoking lapsers is proposed.

Pharmacological treatment for pregnant women who smoke cigarettes

Smoking has been associated with several concerns in pregnancy including miscarriage, preterm delivery and stillbirth. Unfortunately, approximately 12% of the pregnant population continue to smoke cigarettes, suggesting a need for additional therapy beyond behavioural change. This paper reviews the literature on the use of nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion (Zyban^®) in the pregnant human population, the pharmacokinetics of nicotine in the pregnant woman, and current guidelines for smoking cessation for pregnant patients. There are currently four studies that have investigated the use of nicotine patch, three for nicotine gum, and registry and preliminary reports for bupropion. These studies did not show any adverse pregnancy outcomes with the use of pharmacological aid for smoking cessation. All the nicotine replacement therapy studies, with the exception of one randomized-controlled nicotine patch trial had small sample sizes and looked at short-term use of drug in the third trimester. Two studies have examined the pharmacokinetics of nicotine in the pregnant woman. The results from these studies reveal greater nicotine metabolism in pregnant individuals who continue to smoke during pregnancy. Current guidelines from several organizations uniformly recommend that Nicotine Replacement Therapy should be considered if non-pharmacological therapies have been unsuccessful. Bupropion is recommended in pregnancy if the benefits outweigh the risks. There is a need for further studies on the safety and effectiveness of Nicotine Replacement therapy and bupropion in pregnancy. However, considering the current research and guidelines, pharmacological cessation aids should be considered if non-pharmacological therapies have not been effective.

Treatment of tobacco dependence in alcoholics

Because of the high morbidity and mortality that alcoholic smokers experience from tobacco-caused diseases, treatment for tobacco dependence among alcoholics is warranted. Much progress has been made during the last decade in addressing tobacco dependence in alcoholism treatment units. Treatment of tobacco dependence in alcoholic smokers does not seem to cause excessive relapse to drinking and, in fact, stopping smoking may enhance abstinence from drinking. Therefore, treatment for alcoholic smokers should take place whenever and wherever the patient comes in contact with the health care system. Because alcoholic smokers as a rule are more dependent on nicotine than their nonalcoholic counterparts, they may need more intensive pharmacotherapy and behavioral therapy. Because many of them have experienced 12-step approaches to recovery, that same technology can be used to initiate and maintain abstinence from tobacco use. Moreover, several pharmacologic options exist to treat tobacco dependence in alcoholic smokers. However, the efficacy of several pharmacologic therapies for alcoholic smokers needs to be tested. In addition, further research is needed on effective treatments for recovering alcoholics of various racial/ethnic backgrounds.

The nicotine inhaler: clinical pharmacokinetics and comparison with other nicotine treatments

Nicotine inhaled in smoke is the most rapid form of delivery of the drug. With smoking, arterial boli and high venous blood nicotine concentrations are produced within seconds and minutes, respectively. The potency of nicotine as the primary reinforcement in tobacco addiction is attributed to this rapid rate of delivery. By design, nicotine treatments reduce the rate and extent of drug delivery for weaning from nicotine during smoking cessation. Theoretically, they prevent relapse by reducing withdrawal and craving associated with the abrupt cessation of cigarettes. The nicotine inhaler treats the complexity of smoking through weaning both from the drug and from the sensory/ritual components associated with smoking. The inhaler is 'puffed' but not lit and there is considerable 'puffing' required to achieve slower rising and lower nicotine concentrations. These factors allow it to be used as a nicotine reduction treatment. One inhaler contains 10 mg of nicotine (and 1 mg of menthol) of which 4 mg of nicotine can be extracted and 2mg are systemically available. Shallow or deep 'puffing' results in similar nicotine absorption. Nicotine is delivered mainly to the oral cavity, throat and upper respiratory tract with a minor fraction reaching the lungs. This was confirmed with positron emission tomography and by assessment of arterial concentrations. A single inhaler can be used for one 20-minute period of continuous puffing or periodic use of up to 400 puffs per inhaler. With controlled puffing in laboratory testing, venous plasma nicotine concentrations from a single inhaler puffed 80 times over 20 minutes averaged 8.1 microg/L at 30 minutes. Lower concentrations of 6.4 to 6.9 microg/L have been reported for self-administration under clinical conditions. The time to peak plasma concentrations varies but is always significantly longer than with cigarette delivery. Estimates of nicotine intake from cotinine concentrations were higher than expected (60 to 70% of baseline smoking concentrations). This elevation may be due to the swallowing of nicotine and subsequent first-pass biotransformation to cotinine. In general, venous blood nicotine concentrations are considerably lower than with smoking and are within the range observed for other nicotine reduction therapies. Efficacy trials show consistent superiority of the inhaler over placebo. Despite the 'cigarette-like' appearance of the inhaler and the associated sensory/ritual elements, little treatment dependence or abuse has been reported. This is attributed to the slow rise time and low nicotine blood concentrations. The inhaler is a valuable addition to treatment of tobacco dependence and can be used alone or with other treatments.

Contemporary perspectives in tobacco cessation: what oncologists need to know

Within the last 5 years there has been a large outgrowth of smoking cessation research, largely encouraged by the release of the 1996 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence. These federal guidelines published by the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research offered comprehensive empirical evidence that tobacco cessation interventions are effective and encouraged routine implementation within medical settings. Since that time, numerous studies in tobacco cessation have augmented the state of knowledge regarding successful smoking intervention modalities. Unfortunately, approximately one-third of cancer-related deaths continue to be attributed to smoking behaviors. It is imperative that health care providers encourage and participate in the smoking cessation efforts of their patients and family members. This article provides a review of the current literature in smoking cessation and describes first-line therapies with proven effectiveness in tobacco cessation. Clinicians are encouraged to consistently screen for tobacco use and provide brief interventions utilizing behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapies to treat their patients' tobacco dependence.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of nasal nicotine delivery. A review and comparison to other nicotine systems

Rapid drug delivery (arterial "boli') and high drug concentrations occur with nicotine inhaled in smoke. These are believed to be key elements in producing addiction to cigarettes. Preparations which reduce the rate of delivery and/or concentration of nicotine have been introduced as treatments for smoking cessation. These nicotine medications work by relieving withdrawal and preventing relapse associated with abrupt cessation of smoking. The pharmacokinetics of each system are expected to affect efficacy and treatment dependence. Nasal administration systems have been developed to more closely approximate cigarette delivery for improved efficacy in clinical application and for more control in systematic testing of nicotine. With laboratory tested nasal application systems (clinical drug and experimental devices), venous plasma concentrations after a single dose range between 5 and 12 micrograms/L. Higher steady-state blood nicotine concentrations (16 to 29 micrograms/L) have been reported for ad libitum clinical self-administration with a nicotine nasal spray. Time to peak plasma concentration (tmax) with nasal administration is around 11 to 13 minutes for 1 mg doses. This rise time is slower than for cigarette delivery but faster than the other nicotine treatments. Venous plasma concentrations are considerably lower than tobacco product concentrations and fall within the range of the lower dose nicotine treatments (e.g. 2 mg gum vs 4 mg gum). The profile of nasal nicotine administration was designed for certain subsets of smokers. Efficacy trials show consistent superiority of nasal administration over placebo although the comparative efficacy among nicotine treatments remains to be determined. The more rapid onset and user control of nasal nicotine may impose a higher risk for treatment dependence compared with a slower, passive system such as the patch. It may not produce more dependence than other faster-acting treatment systems (e.g. nicotine gum).