1
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Theodoulou A, Farley A, Hajek P, Lycett D, Jones LL, Kudlek L, Heath L, Hajizadeh A, Schenkels M, Aveyard P. Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 10:CD006219. [PMID: 34611902 PMCID: PMC8493442 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006219.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Amanda Farley
- Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Deborah Lycett
- Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
| | - Laura L Jones
- Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Laura Kudlek
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Laura Heath
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hartmann‐Boyce J, Chepkin SC, Ye W, Bullen C, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 5:CD000146. [PMID: 29852054 PMCID: PMC6353172 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 226] [Impact Index Per Article: 37.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann‐Boyce
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | | | - Weiyu Ye
- University of OxfordOxford University Clinical Academic Graduate SchoolOxfordUK
| | - Chris Bullen
- University of AucklandNational Institute for Health InnovationPrivate Bag 92019Auckland Mail CentreAucklandNew Zealand1142
| | - Tim Lancaster
- King’s College LondonGKT School of Medical EducationLondonUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Humfleet GL, Hall SM, Delucchi KL, Dilley JW. A randomized clinical trial of smoking cessation treatments provided in HIV clinical care settings. Nicotine Tob Res 2013; 15:1436-45. [PMID: 23430708 DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntt005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 75] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Identifying successful smoking treatment interventions and methods of delivery is critical given the smoking rates among HIV-positive populations and the medical implications of smoking in this population. This study compared the efficacy of 3 smoking cessation interventions provided in HIV clinical treatment settings. METHODS Following a baseline assessment, 209 HIV-positive smokers were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions in a parallel group design. Treatment conditions were individual counseling plus nicotine replacement treatment (NRT), a computer-based Internet smoking treatment plus NRT, and self-help plus NRT. Smoking status was determined at follow-up assessments completed at 12, 24, 36, and 52 weeks following treatment initiation. RESULTS Cessation rates ranged from 15% to 29%; however, no statistically significant differences in abstinence were found among the treatment conditions over time. Those employed, those who reported a greater desire to quit, or those with lower mood disturbance scores were more likely to achieve abstinence (p < .01). The number of cigarettes participants reported smoking in the 24hr prior to each assessment significantly declined over time (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS Although we found no differences in abstinence rates across groups, the results indicate that integration of smoking cessation interventions is feasible in HIV clinical treatment settings, and cessation results are promising. The overall abstinence rates we report are comparable to those found in similar treatment studies across multiple populations. Further research is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary L Humfleet
- Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Stead LF, Perera R, Bullen C, Mant D, Hartmann-Boyce J, Cahill K, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 11:CD000146. [PMID: 23152200 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 436] [Impact Index Per Article: 36.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is 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 The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies. 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 July 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. 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 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler 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 70%, regardless of setting. The 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lindsay F Stead
- Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford,Oxford,UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Farley AC, Hajek P, Lycett D, Aveyard P. Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 1:CD006219. [PMID: 22258966 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006219.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 111] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most people who stop smoking gain weight. There are some interventions that have been designed to reduce weight gain when stopping smoking. Some smoking cessation interventions may also limit weight gain although their effect on weight has not been reviewed. OBJECTIVES To systematically review the effect of: (1) Interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation.(2) Interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that may also plausibly affect weight on post-cessation weight change. SEARCH METHODS Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL in September 2011.Part 2 - In addition we searched the included studies in the following "parent" Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 9, 2011 of the Cochrane Library. SELECTION CRITERIA Part 1 - We included trials of interventions that were targeted at post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow up point and/or smoking cessation six or more months after quit day.Part 2 - We included trials that had been included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews if they had reported weight gain at any time point. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on baseline characteristics of the study population, intervention, outcome and study quality. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow up between trial arms and was reported in abstinent smokers only. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS Part 1: Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post cessation weight gain (PCWG) resulted in a significant reduction in WG at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine (Mean difference (MD) -2.50 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.98 to -2.02, 1 study), phenylpropanolamine (MD -0.50 kg, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.20, N=3), naltrexone (MD -0.78 kg, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, N=2). There was no evidence that treatment reduced weight at 6 or 12 months (m). No pharmacological intervention significantly affected smoking cessation rates.Weight management education only was associated with no reduction in PCWG at end of treatment (6 or 12m). However these interventions significantly reduced abstinence at 12m (Risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, N=2). Personalised weight management support reduced PCWG at 12m (MD -2.58 kg, 95% CI -5.11 to -0.05, N=2) and was not associated with a significant reduction of abstinence at 12m (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.43, N=2). A very low calorie diet (VLCD) significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -3.70 kg, 95% CI -4.82 to -2.58, N=1), but not significantly so at 12m (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89, N=1). The VLCD increased chances of abstinence at 12m (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73, N=1). There was no evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy to allay concern about weight gain (CBT) reduced PCWG, but there was some evidence of increased PCWG at 6m (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.24). It was associated with improved abstinence at 6m (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.13, N=2) but not at 12m (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.86, N=2). However, there was significant statistical heterogeneity.Part 2: We found no evidence that exercise interventions significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29, N=4) however a significant reduction was found at 12m (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36, N=3).Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited PCWG at the end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.12 kg, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.77, N=7) (fluoxetine MD -0.99 kg, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.61, N=2). There was no evidence that the effect persisted at 6m (bupropion MD -0.58 kg, 95% CI -2.16 to 1.00, N=4), (fluoxetine MD -0.01 kg, 95% CI -1.11 to 1.10, N=2) or 12m (bupropion MD -0.38 kg, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.24, N=4). There were no data on WG at 12m for fluoxetine.Overall, treatment with NRT attenuated PCWG at the end of treatment (MD -0.69 kg, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.51, N=19), with no strong evidence that the effect differed for the different forms of NRT. There was evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity caused by one study which reported a 4.3 kg reduction in PCWG due to NRT. With this study removed, the difference in weight change at end of treatment was -0.45 kg (95% CI -0.66 to -0.27, N=18). There was no evidence of an effect on PCWG at 12m (MD -0.42 kg, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.08, N=15).We found evidence that varenicline significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.41 kg, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.19, N=11), but this effect was not maintained at 6 or 12m. Three studies compared the effect of bupropion to varenicline. Participants taking bupropion gained significantly less weight at the end of treatment (-0.51 kg (95% CI -0.93 to -0.09 kg), N=3). Direct comparison showed no significant difference in PCWG between varenicline and NRT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Although some pharmacotherapies tested to limit PCWG show evidence of short-term success, other problems with them and the lack of data on long-term efficacy limits their use. Weight management education only, is not effective and may reduce abstinence. Personalised weight management support may be effective and not reduce abstinence, but there are too few data to be sure. One study showed a VLCD increased abstinence but did not prevent WG in the longer term. CBT to accept WG did not limit PCWG and may not promote abstinence in the long term. Exercise interventions significantly reduced weight in the long term, but not the short term. More studies are needed to clarify whether this is an effect of treatment or a chance finding. Bupropion, fluoxetine, NRT and varenicline reduce PCWG while using the medication. Although this effect was not maintained one year after stopping smoking, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a modest long-term effect. The data are not sufficient to make strong clinical recommendations for effective programmes to prevent weight gain after cessation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda C Farley
- Primary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is temporarily to 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 The aims of this review were:To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers with 'nicotine' or 'NRT' in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. 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 132 trials; 111 with over 40,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50 to 1.66). The pooled RR for each type were 1.43 (95% CI: 1.33 to 1.53, 53 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.66 (95% CI: 1.53 to 1.81, 41 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.90 (95% CI: 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; 2.00 (95% CI: 1.63 to 2.45, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; and 2.02 (95% CI: 1.49 to 3.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy. In this study quit rates with nicotine patch were lower than with the antidepressant bupropion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler 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 50-70%, regardless of setting. The 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L F Stead
- University of Oxford, Department of Primary Health Care, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, UK OX3 7LF.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Rigotti NA, Thorndike AN, Regan S, McKool K, Pasternak RC, Chang Y, Swartz S, Torres-Finnerty N, Emmons KM, Singer DE. Bupropion for smokers hospitalized with acute cardiovascular disease. Am J Med 2006; 119:1080-7. [PMID: 17145253 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.04.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 99] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2006] [Revised: 03/10/2006] [Accepted: 04/08/2006] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Smoking cessation after myocardial infarction reduces cardiovascular mortality, but many smokers cannot quit despite state-of-the-art counseling intervention. Bupropion is effective for smoking cessation, but its safety and efficacy in hospitalized smokers with acute cardiovascular disease is unknown. METHODS A five-hospital randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial assessed the safety and efficacy of 12 weeks of sustained-release bupropion (300 mg) or placebo in 248 smokers admitted for acute cardiovascular disease, primarily myocardial infarction and unstable angina. All subjects had smoking counseling in the hospital and for 12 weeks after discharge. Cotinine-validated 7-day tobacco abstinence, cardiovascular mortality, and new cardiovascular events were assessed at 3 months (end-of-treatment) and 1 year. RESULTS Validated tobacco abstinence rates in bupropion and placebo groups were 37.1% vs 26.8% (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 0.94-2.76; P=.08) at 3 months and 25.0% vs 21.3% (OR, 1.23, 95% CI, 0.68-2.23, P=.49) at 1 year. The adjusted odds ratio, after controlling for cigarettes per day, depression symptoms, prior bupropion use, hypertension, and length of stay, was 1.91 (95% CI, 1.06-3.40, P=.03) at 3 months and 1.51 (95% CI, 0.81-2.83) at 1 year. Bupropion and placebo groups did not differ in cardiovascular mortality at 1 year (0% vs 2%), in blood pressure at follow-up, or in cardiovascular events at end-of-treatment (16% vs 14%, incidence rate ratio [IRR]1.22 (95% CI: 0.64-2.33) or 1 year (26% vs 18%, IRR 1.56, 95% CI 0.91-2.69). CONCLUSIONS Bupropion improved short-term but not long-term smoking cessation rates over intensive counseling and appeared to be safe in hospitalized smokers with acute cardiovascular disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, General Medicine Division, and Cardiology Division, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass 02114, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Antonuccio DO, Danton WG, McClanahan TM. Psychology in the prescription era: building a firewall between marketing and science. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2004; 58:1028-43. [PMID: 14664691 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066x.58.12.1028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
The pharmaceutical industry has contributed to many life-saving innovations in medicine and has become one of the most successful industries in the world. As a result, pharmaceutical industry financial and marketing influences extend to federal regulatory agencies, professional organizations, medical journals, continuing medical education, scientific researchers, media experts, and consumer advocacy organizations. These extensive influences have created conflicts of interest that have undermined the credibility of medical research and education. As professional psychology pursues and achieves prescription privileges, it will likely be faced with increasing influences from the industry. To preserve the integrity of psychological science, the authors propose an aspirational "firewall" designed to separate industry marketing from the science of psychology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David O Antonuccio
- Veterans Affairs Sierra Nevada Health Care System and University of Nevada School of Medicine, Reno, NV 89503, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This reduces withdrawal symptoms associated with smoking cessation thus helping resist the urge to smoke cigarettes. OBJECTIVES The aims of this review were:to determine the effectiveness of the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes, or a sustained reduction in amount smoked; to determine whether the effect is influenced by the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated, the dosage and form of the NRT used, or the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; to determine whether combinations of NRT are more effective than one type alone; to determine its effectiveness compared to other pharmacotherapies. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in March 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. 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. For each study we calculated summary odds ratios. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. MAIN RESULTS We identified 123 trials; 103 contributing to the primary comparison between NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The odds ratio (OR) for abstinence with NRT compared to control was 1.77 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.66 to 1.88). The ORs for the different forms of NRT were 1.66 (95% CI: 1.52 to 1.81) for gum, 1.81 (95% CI: 1.63 to 2.02) for patches, 2.35 (95% CI: 1.63 to 3.38) for nasal spray, 2.14 (95% CI: 1.44 to 3.18) for inhaled nicotine and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.62 to 2.59) for nicotine sublingual tablet/lozenge. These odds were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum (OR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.85 to 3.25). There was weak evidence that combinations of forms of NRT are more effective. Higher doses of nicotine patch may produce small increases in quit rates. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy. In this study quit rates with bupropion were higher than with nicotine patch or placebo. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) are effective as part of a strategy to promote smoking cessation. They increase the odds of quitting approximately 1.5 to 2 fold regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the smoker. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.
Collapse
|
10
|
Thomson CC, Rigotti NA. Hospital- and clinic-based smoking cessation interventions for smokers with cardiovascular disease. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2003; 45:459-79. [PMID: 12800128 DOI: 10.1053/pcad.2003.ypcad15] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Large observational epidemiologic studies conducted in diverse populations have demonstrated a strong association between smoking and CVD morbidity and mortality. Observational epidemiologic studies have also demonstrated a substantial benefit of smoking cessation on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Smoking cessation after myocardial infarction reduces subsequent cardiovascular mortality by nearly 50%. Therefore, the use of effective strategies to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use is a high priority for both the primary and secondary prevention of CVD. Effective smoking cessation interventions have been identified in randomized controlled trials in the general population of smokers. These methods, which include behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy, are incorporated into clinical practice guidelines for physicians in the United States and Great Britain. A smaller but still substantial body of evidence demonstrates the efficacy of these interventions in hospital- and clinic-based settings for smokers with CVD. This evidence is sufficient to support the routine implementation of these smoking cessation methods in inpatient and outpatient settings for smokers with CVD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carey Conley Thomson
- Pulmonary and Critical Care Unit, and the Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Abstract
Twenty percent of patients with cardiovascular disease smoke, and smoking cessation results in a dramatic decline in the relative risk of future cardiovascular events. Questions regarding the safety of nicotine-replacement therapy and bupropion SR for smoking cessation in patients with cardiovascular disease have arisen, in particular because of potential hemodynamic effects of these agents. There have been several randomized, controlled, clinical trials testing the safety of transdermal nicotine in patients with cardiovascular disease that failed to show an increased risk for cardiac events in active treatment conditions compared with placebo. Efficacy trials conducted in other patient populations also support the safety of nicotine-replacement use in cardiac disease patients. To date there is one randomized controlled trial to test bupropion for smoking cessation conducted in this population. Studies to test the efficacy of bupropion for smoking cessation and depression suggest it is safe to use in cardiac disease patients despite recent case reports of adverse events associated with bupropion use. Nicotine-replacement therapy and bupropion significantly increase long-term smoking cessation rates, and the benefits of cessation exceed the risks for pharmacotherapy in patients with cardiovascular disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne M Joseph
- Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
Tobacco use remains the major preventable cause of early mortality and morbidity in the US and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Quitting smoking rapidly reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. In this review, we identify and discuss best approaches to assist smoking cessation among patients with CVD. Establishing office systems that reliably identify smokers to healthcare providers is an essential first step. Once the patient is identified as a smoker, providers should inquire about their willingness to quit and advise them to quit or provide motivation to get ready to make a quit attempt. Behavioral (counseling) and pharmacologic (nicotine replacement and non-nicotine medications) treatments double or triple long-term cessation rates and should be offered in combination to all patients with CVD who use tobacco. More intensive behavioral therapy is more effective and should be delivered when possible. The choice of pharmacotherapy will depend upon the clinical history of the patient and patient preference. Nicotine replacement and sustained release bupropion (bupropion SR) are first-line treatments for smoking cessation. Nicotine patches have been studied extensively in patients with stable CVD and have been shown to be safe. Bupropion SR has relatively few cardiovascular adverse effects and may be especially useful for patients with CVD; its safety is currently being studied. Special consideration is needed for hospitalized patients with acute coronary syndromes (e.g. myocardial infarction and unstable angina). The safety of pharmacotherapy in the acute setting is not yet established. Behavioral interventions, however, are very effective and should be delivered to all hospitalized smokers. Finally, it is important to create a clinical environment that is supportive of treating patients with tobacco dependence. Simple changes in office and hospital routines and procedures (routine screening to identify smokers, prompts to encourage intervention and links to more intensive tobacco dependence treatment programs) will substantially improve the identification, treatment, and outcomes of patients with CVD who use tobacco.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne M Joseph
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|