1
|
Theodoulou A, Chepkin SC, Ye W, Fanshawe TR, Bullen C, Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Hajizadeh A, Lindson N. Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 6:CD013308. [PMID: 37335995 PMCID: PMC10278922 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013308.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Samantha C Chepkin
- NHS Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Board, Welwyn Garden City, UK
| | - Weiyu Ye
- Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- 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
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Does Smoking Affect OSA? What about Smoking Cessation? J Clin Med 2022; 11:jcm11175164. [PMID: 36079094 PMCID: PMC9457519 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11175164] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2022] [Revised: 08/25/2022] [Accepted: 08/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
The connection between smoking and Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is not yet clear. There are studies that have confirmed the effect of smoking on sleep disordered breathing, whereas others did not. Nicotine affects sleep, as smokers have prolonged total sleep and REM latency, reduced sleep efficiency, total sleep time, and slow wave sleep. Smoking cessation has been related with impaired sleep. The health consequences of cigarette smoking are well documented, but the effect of smoking cessation on OSA has not been extensively studied. Smoking cessation should improve OSA as upper airway oedema may reduce, but there is limited data to support this hypothesis. The impact of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy on OSA has been studied, especially for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). However, there are limited data on other smoking cessation medications as bupropion, varenicline, nortriptyline, clonidine, and cytisine. The aim of this review was to explore the current evidence on the association between smoking and OSA, to evaluate if smoking cessation affects OSA, and to investigate the possible effects of different pharmacologic strategies offered for smoking cessation on OSA.
Collapse
|
3
|
Assessing the effect of nicotine dose in cigarette smoking on sleep quality. Sleep Breath 2020; 25:1319-1324. [PMID: 33118055 DOI: 10.1007/s11325-020-02238-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2020] [Revised: 10/15/2020] [Accepted: 10/22/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND While several studies assessed the relation between cigarette smoking and sleep, there are still very few studies assessing the effect of nicotine in cigarette smoking on sleep. AIM This study aimed to compare higher vs lower nicotine levels in cigarette smoking on sleep quality. METHODS We used data from the recently released dataset for the Randomized Trial of Reduced-Nicotine Standards for Cigarettes. We included three groups in the current study: the least nicotine concentration (i.e., 0.4 mg/g), a moderate nicotine concentration (i.e., 5.2 mg/g), and the highest nicotine concentration (i.e., 15.8 mg/g). For each participant, we included data regarding baseline and the last follow up at 6 weeks, where we compared insomnia, sleep problems, and awakening at night, in addition to different depression and affect scores. RESULTS A total of 360 patients were included in this study, with a mean age of 42.4 (±13.4) years. For the three nicotine groups (i.e., 0.4 mg/g, 5.2 mg/g, and 15.8 mg/g), we included 119 (33%), 122 (34%), and 119 (33%) participants. Among the high-nicotine-dose group, the number of participants who had worsened sleep was significantly higher than the number of those who had improved sleep (p = 0.01) after 6 weeks of consumption, where 37 (31%) had worsened sleep score after 6 weeks while only 19 (16%) had improved score compared with baseline. CONCLUSION While previous studies established a relation either between cigarette smoking and sleep or between nicotine patches and sleep, the present study is the first to establish that higher nicotine doses in cigarettes were associated with more sleep disturbances.
Collapse
|
4
|
Lindson N, Chepkin SC, Ye W, Fanshawe TR, Bullen C, Hartmann‐Boyce J. Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 4:CD013308. [PMID: 30997928 PMCID: PMC6470854 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking abstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I2 = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I2 = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I2 = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I2 = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I2 = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I2 = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I2 = 0%; low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Lindson
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordOxfordshireUKOX2 6GG
| | | | - Weiyu Ye
- University of OxfordOxford University Clinical Academic Graduate SchoolOxfordUK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordOxfordshireUKOX2 6GG
| | - Chris Bullen
- University of AucklandNational Institute for Health InnovationPrivate Bag 92019Auckland Mail CentreAucklandNew Zealand1142
| | - Jamie Hartmann‐Boyce
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordOxfordshireUKOX2 6GG
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
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
|
6
|
|
7
|
Ma P, Kendzor DE, Poonawalla IB, Balis DS, Businelle MS. Daily nicotine patch wear time predicts smoking abstinence in socioeconomically disadvantaged adults: An analysis of ecological momentary assessment data. Drug Alcohol Depend 2016; 169:64-67. [PMID: 27776246 DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.10.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2016] [Revised: 09/12/2016] [Accepted: 10/10/2016] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Individuals who use the nicotine patch are more likely to quit smoking than those who receive placebo or no medication. However, studies have not yet examined the association between actual daily nicotine patch wear time during the early phase of a smoking cessation attempt and later smoking abstinence. The purpose of this study was to address this gap in the literature. METHODS Participants who enrolled in a safety-net hospital smoking cessation program were followed for 13 weeks (i.e., 1 week pre-quit through 12 weeks post-quit). Participants completed in-person assessments and daily ecological momentary assessments on study provided smartphones. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine if daily patch wear time during the first week post-quit predicted 7-day biochemically verified point prevalence smoking abstinence 4 and 12 weeks following the scheduled quit date. Demographic characteristics and smoking behaviors were adjusted as covariates. RESULTS Participants (N=74) were primarily non-White (78.7%) and most (86%) had an annual household income of <$20,000. Greater average hours of daily nicotine patch wear time during the first week post-quit was associated with a greater likelihood of abstinence at the 4 and 12 week post-quit visits (aOR=2.22, 95% CI:1.17-4.23; aOR=2.24, 95% CI:1.00-5.03). Furthermore, more days of wearing the patch for ≥19h was associated with a greater likelihood of abstinence at the 4 and 12 week post-quit visits (aOR=1.81, 95% CI:1.01-3.22; aOR=2.18, 95% CI:1.03-4.63). CONCLUSIONS Greater adherence to the nicotine patch early in a quit attempt may increase the likelihood of smoking cessation among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ping Ma
- Children's Health/Children's Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX, United States.
| | - Darla E Kendzor
- University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Oklahoma, OK, United States
| | - Insiya B Poonawalla
- Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - David S Balis
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of General Internal Medicine, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Michael S Businelle
- University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Oklahoma, OK, United States
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Barboza JL, Patel R, Patel P, Hudmon KS. An update on the pharmacotherapeutic interventions for smoking cessation. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2016; 17:1483-96. [DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2016.1197203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
9
|
Abstract
This article discusses the role sleep and alertness disturbance plays in the initiation, maintenance and relapse of substance use disorders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy A Roehrs
- Sleep Disorders & Research Center, Henry Ford Health System, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 2799 West Grand Blvd Detroit, MI 48202
| | - Thomas Roth
- Sleep Disorders & Research Center, Henry Ford Health System, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 2799 West Grand Blvd Detroit, MI 48202
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Aubin HJ, Luquiens A, Berlin I. Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: pharmacological principles and clinical practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2014; 77:324-36. [PMID: 23488726 PMCID: PMC4014023 DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2012] [Accepted: 02/11/2013] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Strategies for assisting smoking cessation include behavioural counselling to enhance motivation and to support attempts to quit and pharmacological intervention to reduce nicotine reinforcement and withdrawal from nicotine. Three drugs are currently used as first line pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and varenicline. Compared with placebo, the drug effect varies from 2.27 (95% CI 2.02, 2.55) for varenicline, 1.69 (95% CI 1.53, 1.85) for bupropion and 1.60 (95% CI 1.53, 1.68) for any form of nicotine replacement therapy. Despite some controversy regarding the safety of bupropion and varenicline, regulatory agencies consider these drugs as having a favourable benefit/risk profile. However, given the high rate of psychiatric comorbidity in dependent smokers, practitioners should closely monitor patients for neuropsychiatric symptoms. Second-line pharmacotherapies include nortriptyline and clonidine. This review also offers an overview of pipeline developments and issues related to smoking cessation in special populations such as persons with psychiatric comorbidity and pregnant and adolescent smokers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henri-Jean Aubin
- Centre d'enseignement, de recherche, et de traitement des addictions, Hôpital Paul Brousse, Pars-Sud 11 UniversityINSERM U669, 94800, Villejuif, France
| | - Amandine Luquiens
- Centre d'enseignement, de recherche, et de traitement des addictions, Hôpital Paul Brousse, Pars-Sud 11 UniversityINSERM U669, 94800, Villejuif, France
| | - Ivan Berlin
- Département de Pharmacologie, Université P.&M. Curie, Faculté de médecine, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière75013, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
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
|
12
|
Peters EN, Fucito LM, Novosad C, Toll BA, O'Malley SS. Effect of night smoking, sleep disturbance, and their co-occurrence on smoking outcomes. PSYCHOLOGY OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS 2011; 25:312-9. [PMID: 21443301 PMCID: PMC3571661 DOI: 10.1037/a0023128] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that smoking during the night is an indicator of nicotine dependence and predicts smoking cessation failure. Night smokers are likely to experience disturbance to their sleep cycle when they wake to smoke, but we are not aware of the prevalence of night smokers' self-reported sleep disturbance. Because sleep disturbance also predicts smoking cessation failure, we examined how the pre-cessation risk factors of night smoking and sleep disturbance, and their co-occurrence, predict smoking cessation failure in a 6-week double-blind randomized controlled trial examining whether naltrexone augments the efficacy of the nicotine patch (O'Malley et al., 2006). Smokers (N = 385) completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman, & Kupfer, 1989) and a single item of waking at night to smoke pre-cessation. Smoking status was determined at weeks 1, 6, 24, and 48 weeks after quitting. The two main findings were: (a) night smokers reported significantly greater sleep disturbance than nonnight smokers; and (b) smokers with co-occurring night smoking and sleep disturbance experienced significantly greater risk for smoking than smokers with neither risk factor. Results suggest that individuals who both wake during the night to smoke and report clinically-significant sleep disturbance represent a high-risk group of smokers. Future smoking cessation treatment might incorporate strategies related to managing these smokers' sleep habits and physiological dependence on nicotine in order to bolster their cessation outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erica N Peters
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, One Long Wharf Drive, New Haven, CT 06511, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Abstract
Insomnia is often associated with substance dependence, with evidence suggesting that individuals seeking medical attention for sleep complaints are more likely to have drug or alcohol abuse problems than the general population. Disturbed sleep is associated with the abuse of a variety of drugs, with patients dependent on nicotine, alcohol and illicit drugs all reporting poor sleep. In addition, withdrawal from nicotine, alcohol and drugs of abuse is also associated with insomnia, and this may result in an increased risk of relapse if the sleep problems remain unresolved. Although studies suggest that the majority of pharmacological and behavioural interventions for insomnia are effective in treating sleep disturbances in dependent patients undergoing short-term drug withdrawal and short and long-term alcohol withdrawal, several questions remain unanswered. For example, little is known about the risk of relapse in abstinent drug-dependent patients experiencing withdrawal-related insomnia, the effect of insomnia treatment on nicotine withdrawal, or whether insomnia interventions prevent relapse. Participants of a workshop, held at the 6th annual meeting of The International Sleep Disorders Forum: The Art of Good Sleep in 2008, evaluated whether the effective management of sleep disorders could reduce substance dependence and the risk of relapse. Following the workshop a targeted literature review was conducted addressing this question. Data from this review that either pharmacological or cognitive behavioural treatment of insomnia could reduce the risk of relapse in substance dependence were substantially lacking. Further research is therefore required to increase our understanding of the impact of insomnia on patients with substance dependence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Roth
- Sleep Disorders and Research Center, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan 48202, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Jähne A, Cohrs S, Rodenbeck A, Andreas S, Loessl B, Feige B, Kloepfer C, Hornyak M, Riemann D. Nikotin. DER NERVENARZT 2010; 81:844-59. [DOI: 10.1007/s00115-009-2926-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
15
|
Jaehne A, Loessl B, Bárkai Z, Riemann D, Hornyak M. Effects of nicotine on sleep during consumption, withdrawal and replacement therapy. Sleep Med Rev 2009; 13:363-77. [DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2008.12.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 96] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2008] [Revised: 12/08/2008] [Accepted: 12/09/2008] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
16
|
Riemerth A, Kunze U, Groman E. Nocturnal sleep-disturbing nicotine craving and accomplishment with a smoking cessation program. Wien Med Wochenschr 2009; 159:47-52. [DOI: 10.1007/s10354-008-0640-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2007] [Accepted: 02/04/2008] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
17
|
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
|