An employer-based cost-benefit analysis of a novel pharmacotherapy agent for smoking cessation

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. 

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline.

Data collection and analysis

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

Main results

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.

We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.

Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.

Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects?

Key messages

· Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together).

· Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline.

· Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also  investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time.

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:

· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking.

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

· bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking);

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries.

Main results

People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people).

Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people).

For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop.

The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence.

Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true.

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I² = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I² = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I² = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I² = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I² = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I² = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I² = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I² = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking among Professionally Active Adult Population in Poland and Its Strong Relationship with Cardiovascular Co-Morbidities-POL-O-CARIA 2021 Study

Smoking is a leading cause of preventable mortality. It affects both the health and economic situation within societies. The aim of the study is to perform an epidemiological analysis of smoking among professionally active adults in Poland in the years 2016–2020 and its Strong Relationship with Cardiovascular Co-morbidities. The article retrospectively analyzed the records of 1,450,455 who underwent occupational medicine examinations between 2016 and 2020. Statistical analyses performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software were performed. In general, irrespective of the year of measurement, 11.6% of women and 17.1% of men declared smoking. After sorting by year of measurement, we found that the percentage of female smokers was decreasing, while that of males remained relatively consistent. In the case of BMI, it was found that among tobacco smokers the percentage of people with normal body weight decreases with successive years of measurement, while the percentage of overweight and level I obesity increases. Moreover, we analyzed in detail the occurrence of particular comorbidities in the group of people who declared smoking. The most common diseases in this group were: arterial hypertension (39%), lipid disorders (26.7%), and hypertension and lipid disorders (16.5%). Active preventive measures are necessary to reduce the number of smokers and the negative impact of smoking on the occurrence of comorbid diseases.

Economic analyses of mental health and substance use interventions in the workplace: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis

Mental illness and substance use disorders in the workplace have been increasingly recognised as a problem in most countries; however, evidence is scarce on which solutions provide the highest return on investment. We searched academic and grey literature databases and additional sources for studies that included a workplace intervention for mental health or substance abuse, or both, and that did an economic analysis. We analysed the papers we found to identify the highest yielding and most cost-effective interventions by disorder. On the basis of 56 studies, we found moderate strength of evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy is cost-saving (and in some cases cost-effective) to address depression. We observed strong evidence that regular and active involvement of occupational health professionals is cost-saving and cost-effective in reducing sick leave related to mental health and in encouraging return to work. We identified moderate evidence that coverage for pharmacotherapy and brief counselling for smoking cessation are both cost-saving and cost-effective. Addressing mental health and substance misuse in the workplace improves workers' wellbeing and productivity, and benefits employers' bottom line (ie, profit). Future economic analyses would benefit from the consideration of subgroup analyses, examination of longer follow-ups, inclusion of statistical and sensitivity analyses and discussion around uncertainty, and consideration of potential for bias.

Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: Current tobacco treatment guidelines have established the efficacy of available interventions, but they do not provide detailed guidance for common implementation questions frequently faced in the clinic. An evidence-based guideline was created that addresses several pharmacotherapy-initiation questions that routinely confront treatment teams.

Methods: Individuals with diverse expertise related to smoking cessation were empaneled to prioritize questions and outcomes important to clinicians. An evidence-synthesis team conducted systematic reviews, which informed recommendations to answer the questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in the estimated effects and the strength of recommendations.

Results: The guideline panel formulated five strong recommendations and two conditional recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy choices. Strong recommendations include using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch, using varenicline rather than bupropion, using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch in adults with a comorbid psychiatric condition, initiating varenicline in adults even if they are unready to quit, and using controller therapy for an extended treatment duration greater than 12 weeks. Conditional recommendations include combining a nicotine patch with varenicline rather than using varenicline alone and using varenicline rather than electronic cigarettes.

Conclusions: Seven recommendations are provided, which represent simple practice changes that are likely to increase the effectiveness of tobacco-dependence pharmacotherapy.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I² = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I² = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I² = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I² = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I² = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I² = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I² = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

Economic Impact of Financial Incentives and Mailing Nicotine Patches to Help Medicaid Smokers Quit Smoking: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

An RCT designed to increase Medicaid smokers' quitting success was conducted in California during 2012-2013. In the trial, alternative cessation treatment strategies were embedded in the state's ongoing quitline services. It found that modest financial incentives of up to $60 per participant and sending nicotine patches induced significantly higher cessation rates compared with usual care alone and usual care plus nicotine patches. Building upon that study, this study assessed potential population-level costs and benefits of integrating financial incentives and nicotine patches in a quitline setting for Medicaid smokers. A cost-benefit analysis was undertaken from the Medicaid program's perspective. The Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model was used to simulate future healthcare expenditures over a 10-year horizon for each treatment strategy for a study cohort of California Medicaid enrollees who were aged 35-64 years in 2014 (n=2,452,000). To simulate potential population-level benefits under each treatment strategy, each treatment was applied to all active smokers in the study cohort (n=478,300). Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying key parameters, such as cessation costs, discount rate, relapse rates, and time horizon. Adding both financial incentives and nicotine patches to usual quitline care would result in $15 million net savings over 10 years, with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.30 compared with the usual care plus nicotine patches strategy. It would yield $44 million net savings, with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.90 compared with usual care alone. The strategy of providing financial incentives and mailing nicotine patches directly to Medicaid smokers who call the quitline is cost saving. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Advancing Smoking Cessation in California's Medicaid Population, which is sponsored by the California Department of Public Health.

Smoking Cessation Is Associated With Lower Indirect Costs

Objective:

This study quantified differences in indirect costs due to decreased work productivity between current and former smokers. Former smokers were further categorized by number of years since quitting to assess corresponding differences.

Methods:

Data on employed individuals were obtained from the 2013 US National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS; N = 75,000). Indirect costs were calculated for current smokers and former smokers from weekly wages based on age and sex.

Results:

The annual total indirect costs for current smokers were $1327.53, $1560.18, and $1839.87 higher than for those who quit 0 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, and more than or equal to 11 years prior, respectively. There were no significant differences in mean total indirect costs between the former smoker groups.

Conclusions:

Current smokers showed significantly higher total annual indirect costs compared with former smokers, independently of the number of years since quitting smoking.

Examining the association of smoking with work productivity and associated costs in Japan

AIMS

Smoking is associated with significant health and economic burden globally, including an increased risk of many leading causes of mortality and significant impairments in work productivity. This burden is attenuated by successful tobacco cessation, including reduced risk of disease and improved productivity. The current study aimed to show the benefits of smoking cessation for workplace productivity and decreased costs associated with loss of work impairment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data source was the 2011 Japan National Health and Wellness Survey (n = 30,000). Respondents aged 20-64 were used in the analyses (n = 23,738) and were categorized into: current smokers, former smokers, and never smokers. Generalized linear models controlling for demographics and health characteristics examined the relationship of smoking status with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire (WPAI-GH) endpoints, as well as estimated indirect costs.

RESULTS

Current smokers reported the greatest overall work impairment, including absenteeism (i.e. work time missed) and presenteeism (i.e. impairment while at work); however, after controlling for covariates, there were no significant differences between former smokers and never smokers on overall work impairment. Current smokers and former smokers had greater activity impairment (i.e. impairment in daily activities) than never smokers. Current smokers reported the highest indirect costs (i.e. costs associated with work impairment); however, after controlling for covariates, there were no significant differences between former smokers and never smokers on indirect costs.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Smoking exerts a large health and economic burden; however, smoking cessation attenuates this burden. The current study provides important further evidence of this association, with former smokers appearing statistically indistinguishable from never smokers in terms of work productivity loss and associated indirect costs among a large representative sample of Japanese workers. This report highlights the workplace benefits of smoking cessation across productivity markers and cost-savings.

Model-based economic evaluations in smoking cessation and their transferability to new contexts: a systematic review

AIMS

To identify different types of models used in economic evaluations of smoking cessation, analyse the quality of the included models examining their attributes and ascertain their transferability to a new context.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on the economic evaluation of smoking cessation interventions published between 1996 and April 2015, identified via Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The checklist-based quality of the included studies and transferability scores was based on the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) criteria. Studies that were not in smoking cessation, not original research, not a model-based economic evaluation, that did not consider adult population and not from a high-income country were excluded.

FINDINGS

Among the 64 economic evaluations included in the review, the state-transition Markov model was the most frequently used method (n = 30/64), with quality adjusted life years (QALY) being the most frequently used outcome measure in a life-time horizon. A small number of the included studies (13 of 64) were eligible for EURONHEED transferability checklist. The overall transferability scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.97, with an average score of 0.75. The average score per section was 0.69 (range = 0.35-0.92). The relative transferability of the studies could not be established due to a limitation present in the EURONHEED method.

CONCLUSION

All existing economic evaluations in smoking cessation lack in one or more key study attributes necessary to be fully transferable to a new context.

Benefits of quitting smoking on work productivity and activity impairment in the United States, the European Union and China

BACKGROUND

Smoking has important health and economic consequences for individuals and society. This study expands the understanding of work-related burden associated with smoking and benefit of smoking cessation across the US, European Union (EU) and China using large-scale, representative survey methodology.

METHODS

Data utilised the 2013 National Health and Wellness Survey in United States (US), EU5 (UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain) and China. Working-aged respondents 18-64 were used in the analyses (US N=58 500; EU5 N=50 417; China N=17 987) and were categorised into: current smokers, trying to quit, former smokers and never smokers. Generalised linear models controlling for demographics and health characteristics examined the relationship of smoking status with work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI-GH). The WPAI-GH measures were: absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment. Separately, current smokers were compared with those who quit 0-4, 5-10 and 11 or more years ago on WPAI-GH end-points.

RESULTS

Current smokers reported greater absenteeism in the US and China and greater presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment than former and never smokers across the three regions. Those who quit even 0-4 years ago demonstrated lower absenteeism, presenteeism, and activity impairment in China and lower presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment in the US and EU5.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking was associated with significant work productivity loss in the US, EU5 and China. The results suggest that quitting benefits extend to work productivity rapidly after cessation, serving to further encourage and promote the implementation of workplace cessation programs.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist).

OBJECTIVES

To review the efficacy of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in May 2015, although we have included a few key trials published after this date. We also searched online clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomisation procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials of cytisine (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87; low-quality evidence). One recent trial comparing cytisine with NRT in 1310 people found a benefit for cytisine at six months (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80).One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). This drug is no longer in development.We identified 39 trials that tested varenicline, 27 of which contributed to the primary analysis (varenicline versus placebo). Five of these trials also included a bupropion treatment arm. Eight trials compared varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Nine studies tested variations in varenicline dosage, and 13 tested usage in disease-specific subgroups of patients. The included studies covered 25,290 participants, 11,801 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.24 (95% CI 2.06 to 2.43; 27 trials, 12,625 people; high-quality evidence). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1266 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at six months was 1.39 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.54; 5 trials, 5877 people; high-quality evidence). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.25 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; 8 trials, 6264 people; moderate-quality evidence). Four trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The number needed to treat with varenicline for an additional beneficial outcome, based on the weighted mean control rate, is 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). The most commonly reported adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Our analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment suggests there may be a 25% increase in the chance of SAEs among people using varenicline (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49; 29 trials, 15,370 people; high-quality evidence). These events include comorbidities such as infections, cancers and injuries, and most were considered by the trialists to be unrelated to the treatments. There is also evidence of higher losses to follow-up in the control groups compared with the intervention groups, leading to a likely underascertainment of the true rate of SAEs among the controls. Early concerns about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation led to the addition of a boxed warning to the labelling in 2008. However, subsequent observational cohort studies and meta-analyses have not confirmed these fears, and the findings of the EAGLES trial do not support a causal link between varenicline and neuropsychiatric disorders, including suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. The evidence is not conclusive, however, in people with past or current psychiatric disorders. Concerns have also been raised that varenicline may slightly increase cardiovascular events in people already at increased risk of those illnesses. Current evidence neither supports nor refutes such an association, but we await the findings of the CATS trial, which should establish whether or not this is a valid concern.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and three-fold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion or with NRT. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The most frequently recorded adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Early reports of possible links to suicidal ideation and behaviour have not been confirmed by current research.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support.

The Economic Impact of Smoking and of Reducing Smoking Prevalence: Review of Evidence

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is the cause of many preventable diseases and premature deaths in the UK and around the world. It poses enormous health- and non-health-related costs to the affected individuals, employers, and the society at large. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that, globally, smoking causes over US$500 billion in economic damage each year.

OBJECTIVES

This paper examines global and UK evidence on the economic impact of smoking prevalence and evaluates the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of smoking cessation measures.

STUDY SELECTION

SEARCH METHODS We used two major health care/economic research databases, namely PubMed and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) database that contains the British National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database; Cochrane Library of systematic reviews in health care and health policy; and other health-care-related bibliographic sources. We also performed hand searching of relevant articles, health reports, and white papers issued by government bodies, international health organizations, and health intervention campaign agencies. SELECTION CRITERIA The paper includes cost-effectiveness studies from medical journals, health reports, and white papers published between 1992 and July 2014, but included only eight relevant studies before 1992. Most of the papers reviewed reported outcomes on smoking prevalence, as well as the direct and indirect costs of smoking and the costs and benefits of smoking cessation interventions. We excluded papers that merely described the effectiveness of an intervention without including economic or cost considerations. We also excluded papers that combine smoking cessation with the reduction in the risk of other diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The included studies were assessed against criteria indicated in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook version 5.0.0. OUTCOMES ASSESSED IN THE REVIEWPrimary outcomes of the selected studies are smoking prevalence, direct and indirect costs of smoking, and the costs and benefits of smoking cessation interventions (eg, "cost per quitter", "cost per life year saved", "cost per quality-adjusted life year gained," "present value" or "net benefits" from smoking cessation, and "cost savings" from personal health care expenditure).

MAIN RESULTS

The main findings of this study are as follows: The costs of smoking can be classified into direct, indirect, and intangible costs. About 15% of the aggregate health care expenditure in high-income countries can be attributed to smoking. In the US, the proportion of health care expenditure attributable to smoking ranges between 6% and 18% across different states. In the UK, the direct costs of smoking to the NHS have been estimated at between £2.7 billion and £5.2 billion, which is equivalent to around 5% of the total NHS budget each year. The economic burden of smoking estimated in terms of GDP reveals that smoking accounts for approximately 0.7% of China's GDP and approximately 1% of US GDP. As part of the indirect (non-health-related) costs of smoking, the total productivity losses caused by smoking each year in the US have been estimated at US$151 billion.The costs of smoking notwithstanding, it produces some potential economic benefits. The economic activities generated from the production and consumption of tobacco provides economic stimulus. It also produces huge tax revenues for most governments, especially in high-income countries, as well as employment in the tobacco industry. Income from the tobacco industry accounts for up to 7.4% of centrally collected government revenue in China. Smoking also yields cost savings in pension payments from the premature death of smokers.Smoking cessation measures could range from pharmacological treatment interventions to policy-based measures, community-based interventions, telecoms, media, and technology (TMT)-based interventions, school-based interventions, and workplace interventions.The cost per life year saved from the use of pharmacological treatment interventions ranged between US$128 and US$1,450 and up to US$4,400 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. The use of pharmacotherapies such as varenicline, NRT, and Bupropion, when combined with GP counseling or other behavioral treatment interventions (such as proactive telephone counseling and Web-based delivery), is both clinically effective and cost effective to primary health care providers.Price-based policy measures such as increase in tobacco taxes are unarguably the most effective means of reducing the consumption of tobacco. A 10% tax-induced cigarette price increase anywhere in the world reduces smoking prevalence by between 4% and 8%. Net public benefits from tobacco tax, however, remain positive only when tax rates are between 42.9% and 91.1%. The cost effectiveness ratio of implementing non-price-based smoking cessation legislations (such as smoking restrictions in work places, public places, bans on tobacco advertisement, and raising the legal age of smokers) range from US$2 to US$112 per life year gained (LYG) while reducing smoking prevalence by up to 30%-82% in the long term (over a 50-year period).Smoking cessation classes are known to be most effective among community-based measures, as they could lead to a quit rate of up to 35%, but they usually incur higher costs than other measures such as self-help quit-smoking kits. On average, community pharmacist-based smoking cessation programs yield cost savings to the health system of between US$500 and US$614 per LYG.Advertising media, telecommunications, and other technology-based interventions (such as TV, radio, print, telephone, the Internet, PC, and other electronic media) usually have positive synergistic effects in reducing smoking prevalence especially when combined to deliver smoking cessation messages and counseling support. However, the outcomes on the cost effectiveness of TMT-based measures have been inconsistent, and this made it difficult to attribute results to specific media. The differences in reported cost effectiveness may be partly attributed to varying methodological approaches including varying parametric inputs, differences in national contexts, differences in advertising campaigns tested on different media, and disparate levels of resourcing between campaigns. Due to its universal reach and low implementation costs, online campaign appears to be substantially more cost effective than other media, though it may not be as effective in reducing smoking prevalence.School-based smoking prevalence programs tend to reduce short-term smoking prevalence by between 30% and 70%. Total intervention costs could range from US$16,400 to US$580,000 depending on the scale and scope of intervention. The cost effectiveness of school-based programs show that one could expect a saving of approximately between US$2,000 and US$20,000 per QALY saved due to averted smoking after 2-4 years of follow-up.Workplace-based interventions could represent a sound economic investment to both employers and the society at large, achieving a benefit-cost ratio of up to 8.75 and generating 12-month employer cost savings of between $150 and $540 per nonsmoking employee. Implementing smoke-free workplaces would also produce myriads of new quitters and reduce the amount of cigarette consumption, leading to cost savings in direct medical costs to primary health care providers. Workplace interventions are, however, likely to yield far greater economic benefits over the long term, as reduced prevalence will lead to a healthier and more productive workforce.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the direct costs and externalities to society of smoking far outweigh any benefits that might be accruable at least when considered from the perspective of socially desirable outcomes (ie, in terms of a healthy population and a productive workforce). There are enormous differences in the application and economic measurement of smoking cessation measures across various types of interventions, methodologies, countries, economic settings, and health care systems, and these may have affected the comparability of the results of the studies reviewed. However, on the balance of probabilities, most of the cessation measures reviewed have not only proved effective but also cost effective in delivering the much desired cost savings and net gains to individuals and primary health care providers.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including cytisine, dianicline and varenicline for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in December 2011. We also searched online clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two recent cytisine trials (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled RR of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87). One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). Fifteen trials compared varenicline with placebo for smoking cessation; three of these also included a bupropion treatment arm. We also found one open-label trial comparing varenicline plus counselling with counselling alone. We found one relapse prevention trial, comparing varenicline with placebo, and two open-label trials comparing varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We also include one trial in which all the participants were given varenicline, but received behavioural support either online or by phone calls, or by both methods. This trial is not included in the analyses, but contributes to the data on safety and tolerability. The included studies covered 12,223 participants, 8100 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.27 (95% CI 2.02 to 2.55; 14 trials, 6166 people, excluding one trial evaluating long term safety). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1272 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at one year was 1.52 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.88; 3 trials, 1622 people). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for point prevalence abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 2 trials, 778 people). The two trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The main adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. A meta-analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment and not necessarily considered attributable to treatment suggests there may be a one-third increase in the chance of severe adverse effects among people using varenicline (RR 1.36; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79; 17 trials, 7725 people), but this finding needs to be tested further. Post-marketing safety data have raised questions about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation. The labelling of varenicline was amended in 2008, and the manufacturers produced a Medication Guide. Thus far, surveillance reports and secondary analyses of trial data are inconclusive, but the possibility of a link between varenicline and serious psychiatric or cardiovascular events cannot be ruled out.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and threefold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion. Two open-label trials of varenicline versus NRT suggested a modest benefit of varenicline but confidence intervals did not rule out equivalence. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The main adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Possible links with serious adverse events, including serious psychiatric or cardiovascular events, cannot be ruled out.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support. There is a need for further trials of the efficacy of varenicline treatment extended beyond 12 weeks.

Economic evaluation of pharmaco- and behavioral therapies for smoking cessation: a critical and systematic review of empirical research

Economic evaluations are an important tool to improve our understanding of the costs and effects of health care services and to create sustainable health care systems. This article critically assesses empirical evidence from economic evaluations of pharmaco- and behavioral therapies for smoking cessation. A comprehensive literature review of PubMed and the British National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database was conducted. The search identified 15 articles on nicotine-based pharmacotherapies, 12 articles on nonnicotine based pharmacotherapies, no articles on selegiline, and 10 articles on brief counseling for smoking cessation treatment. Results show that both pharmaco- and behavioral therapies for smoking cessation are cost-effective or even cost-saving. The review highlights several shortcomings in methodology and a lack of standardization of current economic evaluations. Efforts to improve methodology will help make future studies more comparable and increase the evidence base so that such evaluations can be more useful to public health practitioners and policy makers.

A cost-benefit analysis of the outpatient smoking cessation services in Taiwan from a societal viewpoint

INTRODUCTION

This study applied a cost-benefit analysis from a societal viewpoint to evaluate the Outpatient Smoking Cessation Services (OSCS) program.

METHODS

The costs measured in this study include the cost to the health sector, non-health sectors, the patients and their family, as well as the loss of productivity as a result of smoking. The benefits measured the medical costs savings and the earnings due to the increased life expectancy of a person that has stopped smoking for 15 years. Data were obtained from the primary data of a telephone survey, the literatures and reports from the Outpatient Smoking Cessation Management Center and government. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

There were 169,761 cases that participated in the outpatient smoking cessation program in the years 2007 and 2008, of those cases, 8,282 successfully stopped smoking. The total cost of the OSCS program was 18 million USD. The total benefits of the program were 215 million USD with a 3% discount rate; the net benefit to society was 196 million USD. After conducting sensitivity analyses on the different abstinence, relapse, and discount rates, from a societal perspective, the benefits still far exceeded the costs, while from a health care perspective, there was only a net benefit when the respondent's abstinence rate was used.

CONCLUSIONS

From a societal perspective, the OSCS program in Taiwan is cost-beneficial. This study provides partial support for the policy makers to increase the budget and expand the OSCS program.

A review of cost-effectiveness of varenicline and comparison of cost-effectiveness of treatments for major smoking-related morbidities

RATIONALE

This review aims to examine economic evaluations of varenicline, to compare the reported cost-effectiveness of varenicline with that of treatments for major smoking-related diseases and to evaluate the findings for decision making.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify published articles in English indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2009), which includes the Economic Evaluation Database. Additional sources also were searched to identify unpublished varenicline studies, including conference abstracts. The search for varenicline studies was limited from 2006 to October 2009; searches for all other types of studies were limited from 1990 to October 2009.

RESULTS

The search yielded a total of 20 relevant economic evaluations of varenicline. In addition, 37 reviews of economic evaluations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, non-small cell lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, as well as studies evaluating the impact of economic rewarding were considered in this review. From these identified economic evaluations, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for varenicline ranged from dominance (more effective and cost saving) to €18,582 per quality-adjusted life-year (including indirect costs). These estimates appeared substantially lower when compared with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for secondary prevention of smoking-related diseases, which in some cases were as high as €66,218 per quality-adjusted life-year.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline appears to be cost-effective from the perspective of both health care payers and employers, because of reduced health care consumption and costs. The cost-effectiveness of varenicline also compares favourably to that of interventions recommended for the treatment and prevention of smoking-related diseases.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). Varenicline was developed as a nicotine receptor partial agonist from cytisine, a drug widely used in central and eastern Europe for smoking cessation. The first trial reports of varenicline were released in 2006, and further trials have now been published or are currently underway.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('varenicline' or 'cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') and 'smoking' in the title or abstract, or as keywords. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL using MeSH terms and free text, and we contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest search was in September 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking after at least six months from the beginning of treatment. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we performed meta-analysis to produce a risk ratio, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 11 trials of varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation; three of these included a bupropion experimental arm. We also found one relapse prevention trial, comparing varenicline with placebo, and two open-label trials comparing varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We also include one trial in which all the participants were given varenicline, but received behavioural support either online or by phone calls, or by both methods. This trial is not included in the analyses, but contributes to the data on safety and tolerability. The included studies covered >10,300 participants, 6892 of whom used varenicline. We identified one trial of cytisine (Tabex) for inclusion.The pooled risk ratio (RR) (10 trials, 4443 people, excluding one trial evaluating long term safety) for continuous abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.01 to 2.66). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1272 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at one year was 1.52 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.88; 3 trials, 1622 people). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for point prevalence abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 2 trials, 778 people). The two trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The main adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Post-marketing safety data raised questions about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation. The labelling of varenicline was amended in 2008, and the manufacturers produced a Medication Guide. Thus far, surveillance reports and secondary analyses of trial data lend little support to a causal relationship.The one cytisine trial included in this review found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at two-year follow up, with an RR of 1.61 (95% CI 1.24 to 2.08).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and threefold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion. Two open-label trials of varenicline versus NRT suggested a modest benefit of varenicline but confidence intervals did not rule out equivalence. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The main adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Possible links with serious adverse events, including depressed mood, agitation and suicidal thoughts, have been reported but are so far not substantiated.There is a need for further independent community-based trials of varenicline, to test its efficacy and safety in smokers with varying co-morbidities and risk patterns. There is a need for further trials of the efficacy of treatment extended beyond 12 weeks. Cytisine may also increase the chances of quitting, but the evidence at present is inconclusive.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). Varenicline was developed as a nicotine receptor partial agonist from cytisine, a drug widely used in central and eastern Europe for smoking cessation. The first trial reports of varenicline were released in 2006, and further trials have now been published or are currently underway.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('varenicline' or 'cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') and 'smoking' in the title or abstract, or as keywords. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL using MeSH terms and free text, and we contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest search was in September 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking after at least six months from the beginning of treatment. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we performed meta-analysis to produce a risk ratio, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 11 trials of varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation; three of these included a bupropion experimental arm. We also found one relapse prevention trial, comparing varenicline with placebo, and two open-label trials comparing varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We also include one trial in which all the participants were given varenicline, but received behavioural support either online or by phone calls, or by both methods. This trial is not included in the analyses, but contributes to the data on safety and tolerability. The included studies covered >10,300 participants, 6892 of whom used varenicline. We identified one trial of cytisine (Tabex) for inclusion.The pooled risk ratio (RR) (10 trials, 4443 people, excluding one trial evaluating long term safety) for continuous abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.01 to 2.66). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1272 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at one year was 1.52 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.88; 3 trials, 1622 people). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for point prevalence abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 2 trials, 778 people). The two trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The main adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Post-marketing safety data raised questions about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation. The labelling of varenicline was amended in 2008, and the manufacturers produced a Medication Guide. Thus far, surveillance reports and secondary analyses of trial data lend little support to a causal relationship.The one cytisine trial included in this review found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at two-year follow up, with an RR of 1.61 (95% CI 1.24 to 2.08).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and threefold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion. Two open-label trials of varenicline versus NRT suggested a modest benefit of varenicline but confidence intervals did not rule out equivalence. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The main adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Possible links with serious adverse events, including depressed mood, agitation and suicidal thoughts, have been reported but are so far not substantiated.There is a need for further independent community-based trials of varenicline, to test its efficacy and safety in smokers with varying co-morbidities and risk patterns. There is a need for further trials of the efficacy of treatment extended beyond 12 weeks. Cytisine may also increase the chances of quitting, but the evidence at present is inconclusive.

Varenicline: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use as an aid to smoking cessation

Varenicline (Chantix, Champix) is an orally administered alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist that is indicated as an aid to smoking cessation. Well designed clinical trials indicate that varenicline is an effective aid to smoking cessation. During the last 4 weeks of treatment, carbon monoxide-confirmed continuous abstinence rates were generally significantly higher with varenicline than with placebo, bupropion sustained release (SR) or nicotine replacement therapy. Varenicline also reduced cravings, the reinforcing effects of smoking and some withdrawal symptoms. Another well designed trial demonstrated that extending varenicline therapy by an additional 12 weeks helped maintain abstinence in individuals who had quit smoking. Varenicline was generally well tolerated in clinical trials; nausea, the most commonly occurring adverse event, diminished over time. More data are needed regarding the potential for neuropsychiatric events in varenicline recipients. Some of these events may be associated with nicotine withdrawal, rather than varenicline, although neuropsychiatric events have been observed in individuals who continued to smoke whilst receiving varenicline. In modelled cost-effectiveness analyses based on data from clinical trials in participants receiving smoking cessation therapy, 12 weeks' treatment with varenicline was predicted to be cost effective from a healthcare payer perspective in numerous countries. With regard to the incremental costs per QALY or life-year gained, 12 weeks' treatment with varenicline consistently dominated bupropion SR and nicotine replacement therapy and was dominant over or considered cost effective relative to unaided cessation, regular brief counselling or nortriptyline in analyses based on Markov models. In additional modelled analyses from a healthcare payer perspective, administering varenicline for an additional 12 weeks in participants who had successfully quit smoking was estimated to have acceptable incremental costs per QALY gained relative to varenicline for 12 weeks and to dominate other smoking cessation options. Moreover, in Swedish analyses that also included societal costs for production and consumption, the incremental cost per QALY gained for varenicline versus bupropion SR, and for an additional 12 weeks of varenicline therapy versus varenicline for 12 weeks only, was below commonly accepted thresholds of cost effectiveness. A US decision-analytic model from the perspective of various US health insurance plans demonstrated that, after 2 years, varenicline was predicted to dominate bupropion SR, in terms of the incremental cost per additional smoking cessation. Varenicline was also dominant or cost effective versus nicotine replacement therapy, and cost effective versus unaided cessation. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results of cost-effectiveness studies were generally robust to plausible variations in key parameters. In conclusion, varenicline is an effective aid to smoking cessation. Varenicline was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, although more data are needed regarding the potential for neuropsychiatric events. The costs associated with varenicline are offset by direct savings associated with the reduction in smoking-related diseases. Despite their limitations, available pharmacoeconomic analyses from numerous countries support the use of varenicline for 12 or 24 weeks as a cost-effective treatment relative to other smoking cessation therapies in smokers who wish to quit smoking.

Cost-effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation

Smoking cessation therapies are among the most cost-effective preventive healthcare measures. Varenicline is a relatively new drug developed especially for this purpose, and it has been shown to achieve better quit rates than nicotine replacement therapies and the non-nicotine-based drug, bupropion, which has been in use for some years. The cost-effectiveness of varenicline depends on the cost of the therapy and the cost-savings achieved through reduced morbidity and mortality; several investigations, based on the situation in different countries, indicate that varenicline either finances itself fully through the cost-savings achieved or offers additional life-years at a lower price than that paid elsewhere in the healthcare sector.

Smoking cessation: an economic analysis and review of varenicline

Despite efforts to decrease tobacco use, smoking continues to be a leading cause of preventable morbidity and premature death. The associated economic burden is substantial, both in the form of direct costs (healthcare expenditures) and indirect costs (lost productivity), regardless of whether the burden is assessed from the standpoint of an employer, a health plan, or society as a whole. Cessation programs are considered among the most cost-effective in healthcare, and are often used as a benchmark for other medical interventions. This analysis specifically considers the cost-effectiveness of varenicline, a novel α(4)β(2) partial agonist used for smoking cessation, in comparison to other approved therapies. Clinical trial data have demonstrated that varenicline has the ability to decrease cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and lessen positive reinforcement associated with smoking. Varenicline's novel mechanism has translated into superior efficacy in comparison to other available therapies. For this reason, despite an initial cost that typically exceeds that of other medications, varenicline is a cost-effective option for smoking cessation.

Varenicline: a first-line treatment option for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Varenicline acts as a partial agonist/antagonist with affinity and selectivity for alpha(4) beta(2) nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. This activity at the nicotine-receptor level may help patients achieve smoking cessation by reducing cravings/withdrawal symptoms and smoking satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the literature on the pharmacologic properties, therapeutic efficacy, and tolerability of varenicline for smoking cessation.

METHODS

Pertinent controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses, meeting abstracts, case reports, and review articles published in English between 1966 and May 2008 were identified through searches of MEDLINE and OVID using the terms varenicline, smoking, tobacco cessation, and CP 526555.

RESULTS

Eight clinical trials were identified that compared <or=12 weeks of varenicline treatment with placebo and/or bupropion sustained release (SR); one of the trials reported follow-up data to 24 weeks, and the remainder reported data to 52 weeks. During treatment with oral varenicline titrated to 1 mg BID, CO-confirmed 4-week continuous quit rates/continuous abstinence rates (CQRs/CARs) in weeks 9 through 12 ranged from 43.9% (odds ratio [OR] = 3.85 [95% CI, 2.69-5.50; P < 0.001 vs placebo]; OR = 1.90 [95% CI, 1.38-2.62; P < 0.001 vs bupropion SR]) to 65.4% (OR = 2.98 [95% CI, 1.78-4.99; P < 0.001 vs placebo]). In 4 of these trials, varenicline 1 mg BID was associated with significantly higher CQRs/CARs compared with placebo at week-52 follow-up, ranging from 21.9% (P < 0.001) to 34.6% (P = 0.036). One trial reported a significantly higher CAR at 52 weeks with varenicline compared with bupropion SR (23.0% vs 14.6%, respectively; P = 0.004), and another reported a significantly higher CAR at 52 weeks with varenicline compared with nicotine replacement therapy (25.9% vs 19.8%, respectively; P = 0.040). In a relapse-prevention study that included a 12-week extension period for participants who were abstinent after the initial 12 weeks of treatment, CARs were significantly improved at 24 weeks with varenicline relative to placebo (70.5% vs 49.6%, respectively; OR = 2.48; 95% CI, 1.95-3.16; P < 0.001). Treatment with varenicline was generally well tolerated in study populations with no major comorbidities. In a pooled analysis of 2 Phase III trials, the most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) with varenicline, bupropion SR, and placebo were nausea (28.8%, 9.9%, and 9.1%, respectively), insomnia (14.2%, 21.5%, and 12.6%), and headache (14.2%, 11.1%, and 12.4%). In a pooled analysis of 2 identically designed Phase III trials, bupropion SR was associated with the highest overall rates of discontinuation due to all-cause AEs compared with varenicline and placebo (13.9%, 9.5%, and 8.2%, respectively) and due to AEs considered related to study drug (12.1%, 7.9%, and 6.4%). In double-blind clinical trials of varenicline, nausea was the most frequently reported AE (16.3%-41.9%). Varenicline treatment should begin 7 days before the proposed smoking quit date; dose titration is recommended to minimize dose-related nausea. Based on postmarketing reports of serious AEs in vareniclinetreated patients, caution is recommended when operating vehicles or heavy machinery. Patient education and monitoring for potential AEs are also recommended, particularly in patients with a history of psychiatric illness.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline has a unique mechanism of action compared with other first-line options for smoking cessation. Available clinical-trial data support its use as an effective and generally well-tolerated therapy for smoking cessation in healthy adult smokers, although there is a need for further efficacy and safety evaluation in the general population, particularly those with comorbid conditions.

Cost-utility analysis of varenicline, an oral smoking-cessation drug, in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-utility analysis of two 12-week smoking-cessation interventions in Japan: smoking-cessation counselling by a physician compared with use of varenicline, an oral smoking-cessation drug, in addition to counselling.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to analyse lifetime medical costs and QALYs from the perspective of the healthcare payer. The cycle length was 5 years. Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. The cohort of smokers was classified by sex and age, and we assumed that smokers started smoking at the age of 20 years and received smoking-cessation therapy at the ages of 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 years (five separate models were run). The healthcare costs and QALYs were calculated throughout the term until the age of 90 years. In the base-case analysis, success rates of varenicline plus counselling and counselling alone were assumed to be 37.9% and 25.5%, respectively, in male smokers, and 22.2% and 16.1%, respectively, in female smokers, based on a randomized controlled trial conducted in Japan. Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Prescribed varenicline was shown to be more effective and less costly than smoking-cessation counselling alone. Varenicline would save direct medical costs of Japanese Yen (yen)43 846 ($US381; $US1 = yen115; Oct 2007) and generate an increase of 0.094 QALYs in male smokers. In females the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was yen346 143 per QALY gained. Varenicline is estimated to save yen23.7 billion ($US206 million) of the medical costs for tobacco-associated diseases for the whole population. Overall savings are yen9.5 billion. Sensitivity analyses suggested the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

As with any data of this nature, there is some uncertainty in the results and further research is warranted. However, based on the results of this pharmacoeconomic evaluation, varenicline, the first non-nicotine, oral treatment developed for smoking cessation, appears to be cost effective and may contribute to future medical cost savings in Japan.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). Varenicline was developed as a nicotine receptor partial agonist from cytisine, a drug widely used in central and eastern Europe for smoking cessation. The first trial reports of varenicline were released in 2006, and further trials have now been published or are currently are underway.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('varenicline' or 'cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') and 'smoking' in the title or abstract, or as keywords. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL using MeSH terms and free text, and we contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest search was in March 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking after at least six months from the beginning of treatment. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we performed meta-analysis to produce a risk ratio, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We found seven trials of varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation; three of these also included a bupropion experimental arm. We found one relapse prevention trial, comparing varenicline with placebo. We also found one open-label trial comparing varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy. The nine trials covered 7267 participants, 4744 of whom used varenicline. We identified one trial of cytisine (Tabex) for inclusion. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for continuous abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline versus placebo was 2.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.95 to 2.80). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at one year was 1.52 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.88). The RR for varenicline versus NRT at one year was 1.31 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.71). The two trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The main adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Post-marketing safety data suggest that varenicline may be associated with depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation. The labelling of varenicline has been amended, and the FDA is conducting a safety review. The one cytisine trial included in this review found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at two-year follow up, with an RR of 1.61 (95% CI 1.24 to 2.08).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and threefold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion. One open-label trial of varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy demonstrated a modest benefit of varenicline. The effectiveness of varenicline as an aid to relapse prevention has not been clearly established. The main adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Possible links with serious adverse events, including depressed mood, agitation and suicidal thoughts, are currently under review. There is a need for independent community-based trials of varenicline, to test its efficacy and safety in smokers with varying co-morbidities and risk patterns. There is a need for further trials of the efficacy of treatment extended beyond 12 weeks. Cytisine may also increase the chances of quitting, but the evidence at present is inconclusive.

The role of economics in the QUERI program: QUERI Series

BACKGROUND

The United States (U.S.) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) has implemented economic analyses in single-site and multi-site clinical trials. To date, no one has reviewed whether the QUERI Centers are taking an optimal approach to doing so. Consistent with the continuous learning culture of the QUERI Program, this paper provides such a reflection.

METHODS

We present a case study of QUERI as an example of how economic considerations can and should be integrated into implementation research within both single and multi-site studies. We review theoretical and applied cost research in implementation studies outside and within VA. We also present a critique of the use of economic research within the QUERI program.

RESULTS

Economic evaluation is a key element of implementation research. QUERI has contributed many developments in the field of implementation but has only recently begun multi-site implementation trials across multiple regions within the national VA healthcare system. These trials are unusual in their emphasis on developing detailed costs of implementation, as well as in the use of business case analyses (budget impact analyses).

CONCLUSION

Economics appears to play an important role in QUERI implementation studies, only after implementation has reached the stage of multi-site trials. Economic analysis could better inform the choice of which clinical best practices to implement and the choice of implementation interventions to employ. QUERI economics also would benefit from research on costing methods and development of widely accepted international standards for implementation economics.

Smoking cessation therapy with varenicline

Smoking cessation is the only available intervention proven to halt progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The authors discuss the current existing treatment modalities and the role of a newly approved agent, varenicline, in promotion of smoking cessation. Varenicline is a novel agent that is a centrally acting partial nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist. It has both agonistic and antagonistic properties that together are believed to account for reduction of craving and withdrawal as well as blocking the rewarding effects of smoking. Its targeted mechanism of action, better efficacy and tolerability makes varenicline a useful therapeutic option for smoking cessation. In this article, we discuss presently available options for smoking cessation and review the literature on efficacy of varenicline.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

There are at least two theoretical reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Alternatively, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways underlying nicotine addiction, (e.g. blocking nicotine receptors) independent of their antidepressant effects.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the effect of antidepressant medications in aiding long-term smoking cessation. The medications include bupropion; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; moclobemide; nortriptyline; paroxetine; sertraline, tryptophan and venlafaxine.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register which includes trials indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch and PsycINFO, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in September 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of study population, the nature of the pharmacotherapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as an odds ratio (OR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen new trials were identified since the last update in 2004 bringing the total number of included trials to 53. There were 40 trials of bupropion and eight trials of nortriptyline. When used as the sole pharmacotherapy, bupropion (31 trials, odds ratio [OR] 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72 to 2.19) and nortriptyline (four trials, OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.41) both doubled the odds of cessation. There is insufficient evidence that adding bupropion or nortriptyline to nicotine replacement therapy provides an additional long-term benefit. Three trials of extended therapy with bupropion to prevent relapse after initial cessation did not find evidence of a significant long-term benefit. From the available data bupropion and nortriptyline appear to be equally effective and of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement therapy. Pooling three trials comparing bupropion to varenicline showed a lower odds of quitting with bupropion (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78). There is a risk of about 1 in 1000 of seizures associated with bupropion use. Concerns that bupropion may increase suicide risk are currently unproven. Nortriptyline has the potential for serious side-effects, but none have been seen in the few small trials for smoking cessation. There were six trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; four of fluoxetine, one of sertraline and one of paroxetine. None of these detected significant long-term effects, and there was no evidence of a significant benefit when results were pooled. There was one trial of the monoamine oxidase inhibitor moclobemide, and one of the atypical antidepressant venlafaxine. Neither of these detected a significant long-term benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline aid long-term smoking cessation but selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine) do not. Evidence suggests that the mode of action of bupropion and nortriptyline is independent of their antidepressant effect and that they are of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement. Adverse events with both medications are rarely serious or lead to stopping medication.