1
|
Chaisai C, Patikorn C, Thavorn K, Lee SWH, Chaiyakunapruk N, Veettil SK. Incremental net monetary benefit of using varenicline for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies. Addiction 2024; 119:1188-1202. [PMID: 38520121 DOI: 10.1111/add.16464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2023] [Accepted: 01/25/2024] [Indexed: 03/25/2024]
Abstract
AIMS To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of varenicline compared with behaviour support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), behaviour support alone and unaided cessation in adult smokers making a first-time attempt to quit. METHODS A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic. RESULTS Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSION Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chayutthaphong Chaisai
- School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
- Department of Pharmaceutical Care, Faculty of Pharmacy, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
| | - Chanthawat Patikorn
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Kednapa Thavorn
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Shaun Wen Huey Lee
- School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
- School of Medicine, Taylor's University, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- IDEAS Centre, Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Sajesh K Veettil
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- School of Medicine, Taylor's University, Selangor, Malaysia
- School of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lee CM, Seo YB, Paek YJ, Lee ES, Kang HS, Kim SY, Roh S, Park DW, An YS, Jo SH. Evidence-Based Guideline for the Treatment of Smoking Cessation Provided by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea. Korean J Fam Med 2024; 45:69-81. [PMID: 38414371 DOI: 10.4082/kjfm.23.0142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2023] [Accepted: 11/03/2023] [Indexed: 02/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Although major countries, such as South Korea, have developed and disseminated national smoking cessation guidelines, these efforts have been limited to developing individual societies or specialized institution-based recommendations. Therefore, evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential for developing smoking cessation interventions and promoting effective smoking cessation treatments. This guideline targets frontline clinical practitioners involved in a smoking cessation treatment support program implemented in 2015 with the support of the National Health Insurance Service. The Guideline Development Group of 10 multidisciplinary smoking cessation experts employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach to review recent domestic and international research and guidelines and to determine evidence levels using the GRADE methodology. The guideline panel formulated six strong recommendations and one conditional recommendation regarding pharmacotherapy choices among general and special populations (mental disorders and chronic obstructive lung disease [COPD]). Strong recommendations favor varenicline rather than a nicotine patch or bupropion, using varenicline even if they are not ready to quit, using extended pharmacotherapy (>12 weeks) rather than standard treatment (8-12 weeks), or using pharmacotherapy for individuals with mental disorders or COPD. The conditional recommendation suggests combining varenicline with a nicotine patch instead of using varenicline alone. Aligned with the Korean Society of Medicine's clinical guideline development process, this is South Korea's first domestic smoking cessation treatment guideline that follows standardized guidelines. Primarily focusing on pharmacotherapy, it can serve as a foundation for comprehensive future smoking cessation clinical guidelines, encompassing broader treatment topics beyond medications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cheol Min Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoo-Bin Seo
- Department of Family Medicine, Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo, Korea
| | - Yu-Jin Paek
- Department of Family Medicine and Health Promotion Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea
| | - Eon Sook Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - Hye Seon Kang
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, Bucheon, Korea
| | - Soo Young Kim
- Department of Family Medicine, Hallym University Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sungwon Roh
- Department of Psychiatry, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Won Park
- Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoo Suk An
- Department of Psychiatry, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang-Ho Jo
- Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
4
|
Livingstone-Banks J, Fanshawe TR, Thomas KH, Theodoulou A, Hajizadeh A, Hartman L, Lindson N. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 5:CD006103. [PMID: 37142273 PMCID: PMC10169257 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006103.pub8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Kyla H Thomas
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Lilian Hartman
- University of Oxford Medical School, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Thomas KH, Dalili MN, López-López JA, Keeney E, Phillippo D, Munafò MR, Stevenson M, Caldwell DM, Welton NJ. Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-224. [PMID: 34668482 DOI: 10.3310/hta25590] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes. OBJECTIVES To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes. DESIGN Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results. SETTING Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes. PARTICIPANTS Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes. INTERVENTIONS Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events. DATA SOURCES Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019. REVIEW METHODS Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model. RESULTS Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard. LIMITATIONS Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified. CONCLUSIONS Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK. FUTURE WORK Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyla H Thomas
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael N Dalili
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - José A López-López
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Edna Keeney
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - David Phillippo
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Marcus R Munafò
- Faculty of Life Sciences, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Matt Stevenson
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Deborah M Caldwell
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicky J Welton
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Keeney E, Welton NJ, Stevenson M, Dalili MN, López-López JA, Caldwell DM, Phillippo DM, Munafò MR, Thomas KH. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the United Kingdom Accounting for Major Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2021; 24:780-788. [PMID: 34119075 PMCID: PMC8177405 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.12.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Revised: 11/27/2020] [Accepted: 12/02/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom. METHODS An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information. RESULTS When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most cost-effective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose + bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose + NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose + NRT standard-dose. CONCLUSION Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edna Keeney
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
| | - Nicky J Welton
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | - Matt Stevenson
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK
| | - Michael N Dalili
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | - José A López-López
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK; Department of Basic Psychology & Methodology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
| | - Deborah M Caldwell
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | - David M Phillippo
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | - Marcus R Munafò
- School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | - Kyla H Thomas
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Leone FT, Zhang Y, Evers-Casey S, Evins AE, Eakin MN, Fathi J, Fennig K, Folan P, Galiatsatos P, Gogineni H, Kantrow S, Kathuria H, Lamphere T, Neptune E, Pacheco MC, Pakhale S, Prezant D, Sachs DPL, Toll B, Upson D, Xiao D, Cruz-Lopes L, Fulone I, Murray RL, O’Brien KK, Pavalagantharajah S, Ross S, Zhang Y, Zhu M. Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202:e5-e31. [PMID: 32663106 PMCID: PMC7365361 DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202005-1982st] [Citation(s) in RCA: 103] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
8
|
Livingstone‐Banks J, Norris E, Hartmann‐Boyce J, West R, Jarvis M, Chubb E, Hajek P. Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 2019:CD003999. [PMID: 31684681 PMCID: PMC6816175 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003999.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse. OBJECTIVES To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in May 2019 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included 81 studies (69,094 participants), five of which are new to this update. We judged 22 studies to be at high risk of bias, 53 to be at unclear risk of bias, and six studies to be at low risk of bias. Fifty studies included abstainers, and 30 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty-eight studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (19 studies), hospital admission (six studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy. We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in abstainers, three pharmacotherapy analyses showed benefits of the intervention: extended varenicline in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 1297, risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.41, I2 = 82%; moderate-certainty evidence), rimonabant in assisted abstainers (1 study, RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in unaided abstainers (2 studies, n = 2261, RR 1.24, 95% Cl 1.04 to 1.47, I2 = 56%). The remainder of analyses of pharmacotherapies in abstainers had wide confidence intervals consistent with both no effect and a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention. These included NRT in hospital inpatients (2 studies, n = 1078, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.60, I2 = 0%), NRT in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 553, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), extended bupropion in assisted abstainers (6 studies, n = 1697, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), and bupropion plus NRT (2 studies, n = 243, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.87, I2 = 66%; low-certainty evidence). Analyses of behavioural interventions in abstainers did not detect an effect. These included studies in abstinent pregnant and postpartum women at the end of pregnancy (8 studies, n = 1523, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11, I2 = 0%) and at postpartum follow-up (15 studies, n = 4606, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, I2 = 3%), studies in hospital inpatients (5 studies, n = 1385, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.47, I2 = 58%), and studies in assisted abstainers (11 studies, n = 5523, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.11, I2 = 52%; moderate-certainty evidence) and unaided abstainers (5 studies, n = 3561, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, I2 = 1%) from the general population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Behavioural interventions that teach people to recognise situations that are high risk for relapse along with strategies to cope with them provided no worthwhile benefit in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers, although unexplained statistical heterogeneity means we are only moderately certain of this. In people who have successfully quit smoking using pharmacotherapy, there were mixed results regarding extending pharmacotherapy for longer than is standard. Extended treatment with varenicline helped to prevent relapse; evidence for the effect estimate was of moderate certainty, limited by unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not detect a benefit from extended treatment with bupropion, though confidence intervals mean we could not rule out a clinically important benefit at this stage. Low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not show a benefit of extended treatment with nicotine replacement therapy in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers. More research is needed in this area, especially as the evidence for extended nicotine replacement therapy in unassisted abstainers did suggest a benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Emma Norris
- University College LondonCentre for Behaviour ChangeLondonUK
| | | | - Robert West
- University College LondonDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health1‐19 Torrington PlaceLondonUKWC1E 6BT
| | - Martin Jarvis
- University College LondonHealth Behavior Research Centre of Cancer Research UK, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health2‐16 Torrington PlaceLondonUKWC1E 6BT
| | - Emma Chubb
- Cardiff UniversitySchool of PsychologyCardiffUK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of LondonWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine55 Philpot StreetLondonUKE1 2HJ
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Livingstone‐Banks J, Norris E, Hartmann‐Boyce J, West R, Jarvis M, Hajek P. Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 2:CD003999. [PMID: 30758045 PMCID: PMC6372978 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003999.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse. OBJECTIVES To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in February 2018 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included 77 studies (67,285 participants), 15 of which are new to this update. We judged 21 studies to be at high risk of bias, 51 to be at unclear risk of bias, and five studies to be at low risk of bias. Forty-eight studies included abstainers, and 29 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty-six studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (18 studies), hospital admission (five studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy.We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in abstainers, three pharmacotherapy analyses showed benefits of the intervention: extended varenicline in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 1297, risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.41, I² = 82%; moderate certainty evidence), rimonabant in assisted abstainers (1 study, RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in unaided abstainers (2 studies, n = 2261, RR 1.24, 95% Cl 1.04 to 1.47, I² = 56%). The remainder of analyses of pharmacotherapies in abstainers had wide confidence intervals consistent with both no effect and a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention. These included NRT in hospital inpatients (2 studies, n = 1078, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.60, I² = 0%), NRT in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 553, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), extended bupropion in assisted abstainers (6 studies, n = 1697, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and bupropion plus NRT (2 studies, n = 243, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.87, I² = 66%; low certainty evidence). Analyses of behavioural interventions in abstainers did not detect an effect. These included studies in abstinent pregnant and postpartum women at end of pregnancy (8 studies, n = 1523, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11, I² = 0%) and at postpartum follow-up (15 studies, n = 4606, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, I² = 3%), studies in hospital inpatients (4 studies, n = 1300, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.11, I² = 0%), and studies in assisted abstainers (10 studies, n = 5408, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.13, I² = 56%; moderate certainty evidence) and unaided abstainers (5 studies, n = 3561, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, I² = 1%) from the general population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Behavioural interventions that teach people to recognise situations that are high risk for relapse along with strategies to cope with them provided no worthwhile benefit in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers, although unexplained statistical heterogeneity means we are only moderately certain of this. In people who have successfully quit smoking using pharmacotherapy, there were mixed results regarding extending pharmacotherapy for longer than is standard. Extended treatment with varenicline helped to prevent relapse; evidence for the effect estimate was of moderate certainty, limited by unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not detect a benefit from extended treatment with bupropion, though confidence intervals mean we could not rule out a clinically important benefit at this stage. Low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not show a benefit of extended treatment with nicotine replacement therapy in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers. More research is needed in this area, especially as the evidence for extended nicotine replacement therapy in unassisted abstainers did suggest a benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Emma Norris
- University College LondonCentre for Behaviour ChangeLondonUK
| | | | - Robert West
- University College LondonDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health1‐19 Torrington PlaceLondonUKWC1E 6BT
| | - Martin Jarvis
- University College LondonHealth Behavior Research Centre of Cancer Research UK, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health2‐16 Torrington PlaceLondonUKWC1E 6BT
| | - Peter Hajek
- Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of LondonWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine55 Philpot StreetLondonUKE1 2HJ
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Berg ML, Cheung KL, Hiligsmann M, Evers S, de Kinderen RJA, Kulchaitanaroaj P, Pokhrel S. Model-based economic evaluations in smoking cessation and their transferability to new contexts: a systematic review. Addiction 2017; 112:946-967. [PMID: 28060453 PMCID: PMC5434798 DOI: 10.1111/add.13748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2016] [Revised: 06/06/2016] [Accepted: 12/30/2016] [Indexed: 12/04/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marrit L. Berg
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research InstituteMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
| | - Kei Long Cheung
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research InstituteMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
| | - Mickaël Hiligsmann
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research InstituteMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
| | - Silvia Evers
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research InstituteMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands,Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and AddictionUtrechtThe Netherlands
| | - Reina J. A. de Kinderen
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research InstituteMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands,Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and AddictionUtrechtThe Netherlands
| | | | - Subhash Pokhrel
- Health Economics Research GroupBrunel University LondonUxbridgeUK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Cahill K, Lindson‐Hawley N, Thomas KH, Fanshawe TR, Lancaster T. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016:CD006103. [PMID: 27158893 PMCID: PMC6464943 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006103.pub7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 185] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Cahill
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | - Nicola Lindson‐Hawley
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | - Kyla H Thomas
- University of BristolSchool of Social and Community MedicineCanynge Hall39 Whatley RoadBristolUKBS8 2PS
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | - Tim Lancaster
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Feirman SP, Donaldson E, Glasser AM, Pearson JL, Niaura R, Rose SW, Abrams DB, Villanti AC. Mathematical Modeling in Tobacco Control Research: Initial Results From a Systematic Review. Nicotine Tob Res 2015; 18:229-42. [PMID: 25977409 DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntv104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2015] [Accepted: 05/05/2015] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed interest in using mathematical models to evaluate potential tobacco policies. The goal of this systematic review was to synthesize data from tobacco control studies that employ mathematical models. METHODS We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 to identify published studies that used a mathematical model to project a tobacco-related outcome and developed a data extraction form based on the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices. We developed an organizational framework to categorize these studies and identify models employed across multiple papers. We synthesized results qualitatively, providing a descriptive synthesis of included studies. RESULTS The 263 studies in this review were heterogeneous with regard to their methodologies and aims. We used the organizational framework to categorize each study according to its objective and map the objective to a model outcome. We identified two types of study objectives (trend and policy/intervention) and three types of model outcomes (change in tobacco use behavior, change in tobacco-related morbidity or mortality, and economic impact). Eighteen models were used across 118 studies. CONCLUSIONS This paper extends conventional systematic review methods to characterize a body of literature on mathematical modeling in tobacco control. The findings of this synthesis can inform the development of new models and the improvement of existing models, strengthening the ability of researchers to accurately project future tobacco-related trends and evaluate potential tobacco control policies and interventions. These findings can also help decision-makers to identify and become oriented with models relevant to their work.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shari P Feirman
- The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| | - Elisabeth Donaldson
- The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| | - Allison M Glasser
- The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC
| | - Jennifer L Pearson
- The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| | - Ray Niaura
- The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Shyanika W Rose
- The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC
| | - David B Abrams
- The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Andrea C Villanti
- The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD;
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
von Wartburg M, Raymond V, Paradis PE. The long-term cost-effectiveness of varenicline (12-week standard course and 12 + 12-week extended course) vs. other smoking cessation strategies in Canada. Int J Clin Pract 2014; 68:639-46. [PMID: 24472120 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12363] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Smoking is the leading risk factor for preventable morbidity and mortality as a result of heart and lung diseases and various forms of cancer. Reimbursement coverage for smoking cessation therapies remains limited in Canada and the United States despite the health and economic benefits of smoking cessation. OBJECTIVES This study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of varenicline compared with other smoking cessation interventions in Canada using the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes (BENESCO) model. METHODS Efficacy rates of the standard course (12 weeks) varenicline, extended course (12 + 12 weeks) varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy and unaided intervention were derived based on a published mixed treatment comparison methodology and analysed within a Markov cohort model to estimate their cost-effectiveness over the lifetime cycle. Study cohort, smoking rates and prevalence, incidence and mortality of smoking-related diseases were calibrated to represent the Canadian population. RESULTS Over the subjects' lifetime, both the standard and the extended course of varenicline are shown to dominate (e.g. less costly and more effective) all other alternative smoking cessation interventions considered. Compared with the standard varenicline treatment course, the extended course is highly cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than $4000 per quality-adjusted life year. Including indirect cost and benefits of smoking cessation interventions further strengthens the result with the extended course of varenicline dominating all other alternatives considered. LIMITATIONS Evidence from complex smoking cessation models requiring numerous inputs and assumptions should be assessed in conjunction with evidence from other methodologies. CONCLUSIONS The standard and extended courses of varenicline are decidedly cost-effective treatment regimes compared with alternative smoking cessation interventions and can provide significant cost savings to the healthcare system.
Collapse
|
14
|
Hajek P, Stead LF, West R, Jarvis M, Hartmann-Boyce J, Lancaster T. Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD003999. [PMID: 23963584 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003999.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse. OBJECTIVES To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in May 2013 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in title, abstracts or keywords. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included trials that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Studies were screened and data extracted by one review author, and checked by a second. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by referral to a third review author. MAIN RESULTS Sixty-three studies met inclusion criteria but were heterogeneous in terms of populations and interventions. We considered 41 studies that randomly assigned abstainers separately from studies that randomly assigned participants before their quit date.Upon looking at studies of behavioural interventions that randomly assigned abstainers, we detected no benefit of brief and 'skills-based' relapse prevention methods for women who had quit smoking because of pregnancy, or for smokers undergoing a period of enforced abstinence during hospitalisation or military training. We also failed to detect significant effects of behavioural interventions in trials in unselected groups of smokers who had quit on their own or through a formal programme. Amongst trials randomly assigning smokers before their quit date and evaluating the effects of additional relapse prevention components, we found no evidence of benefit of behavioural interventions or combined behavioural and pharmacotherapeutic interventions in any subgroup. Overall, providing training in skills thought to be needed for relapse avoidance did not reduce relapse, but most studies did not use experimental designs best suited to the task and had limited power to detect expected small differences between interventions. For pharmacological interventions, extended treatment with varenicline significantly reduced relapse in one trial (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.36). Pooling of six studies of extended treatment with bupropion failed to detect a significant effect (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35). Two small trials of oral nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) failed to detect an effect, but treatment compliance was low, and in two other trials of oral NRT in which short-term abstainers were randomly assigned, a significant effect of intervention was noted. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS At the moment, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any specific behavioural intervention to help smokers who have successfully quit for a short time to avoid relapse. The verdict is strongest for interventions focused on identifying and resolving tempting situations, as most studies were concerned with these. Little research is available regarding other behavioural approaches.Extended treatment with varenicline may prevent relapse. Extended treatment with bupropion is unlikely to have a clinically important effect. Studies of extended treatment with nicotine replacement are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, 55 Philpot Street, London, UK, E1 2HJ
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Bolin K. Economic evaluation of smoking-cessation therapies: a critical and systematic review of simulation models. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2012; 30:551-64. [PMID: 22591112 DOI: 10.2165/11590120-000000000-00000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Smoking is probably the most important among preventable health risks. Health economic evaluation of smoking-cessation interventions, applying a lifetime perspective, is made possible by available epidemiological knowledge. The well established method of performing cost-effectiveness analyses of smoking-cessation interventions involves mathematical modelling (both deterministic and stochastic) of future events important for cost effectiveness. OBJECTIVES This study surveys cost-effectiveness analyses of smoking cessation, with a particular focus on the mathematical modelling and simulation analyses performed. DATA SOURCES A systematic literature search was performed using the databases MEDLINE, Econlit and Academic Search Complete. STUDY SELECTION Health economic evaluations, published as full-length journal articles, were searched for. RESULTS 423 studies were identified and 78 were finally included, of which 30 were assessed as being highly relevant, based on the application of simulation modelling. CONCLUSIONS In general, studies are well performed as regards modelling. Common weaknesses include reporting of modelling details; validation of used simulation models; and the handling of structural uncertainty and different types of heterogeneity.
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Cahill
- Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Ruger JP, Lazar CM. Economic evaluation of pharmaco- and behavioral therapies for smoking cessation: a critical and systematic review of empirical research. Annu Rev Public Health 2012; 33:279-305. [PMID: 22224889 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124553] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Prah Ruger
- School of Public Health, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8034, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Cahill
- Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Rosemary Rue Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LF
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Cahill
- Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Rosemary Rue Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LF
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Abstract
Varenicline (Chantix, Champix) is an orally administered alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist that is indicated as an aid to smoking cessation. Varenicline was an effective aid to smoking cessation and 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. Indeed, 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. For example, in modelled cost-effectiveness analyses conducted from a healthcare payer perspective, 12 weeks' treatment with varenicline consistently dominated bupropion sustained release and nicotine replacement therapy, and was dominant over, or considered cost effective relative to, unaided cessation, brief counselling or nortriptyline, with regard to the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year gained.
Collapse
|
21
|
Keating GM, Lyseng-Williamson KA. Varenicline: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use as an aid to smoking cessation. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2010; 28:231-254. [PMID: 20108995 DOI: 10.2165/11204380-000000000-00000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
22
|
Bolin K, Wilson K, Benhaddi H, de Nigris E, Marbaix S, Mork AC, Aubin HJ. Cost-effectiveness of varenicline compared with nicotine patches for smoking cessation—results from four European countries. Eur J Public Health 2009; 19:650-4. [DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckp075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|