Nicotine nasal spray with nicotine patch for smoking cessation: randomised trial with six year follow up

Smoking reduction using electronic nicotine delivery systems in combination with nicotine skin patches

RATIONALE

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are used by smokers seeking to reduce combustible cigarette (CC) use, but the role of nicotine replacement vs. behavioral and sensory factors is still poorly understood. We hypothesized that providing nicotine from ENDS in addition to nicotine skin patches would promote smoking reduction relative to non-nicotine control ENDS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on smoking behavior of using nicotine vs. placebo ENDS in smokers using nicotine vs. placebo patches.

METHODS

Ninety-four daily smokers were enrolled in a study that randomly assigned them to receive ENDS with nicotine vs. without nicotine and skin patches with vs. without nicotine. Smoking reduction and cessation were assessed over an 8-week period by self-report and by expired air carbon monoxide (CO) measurements. The primary outcome was defined as reduction in expired air CO.

RESULTS

The use of nicotine in ENDS led to significant reductions in smoking (ENDS nicotine vs. placebo difference in CO change = -9.2 ppm; 90% CI (-1.5 ppm, -16.9 ppm)) and was highly correlated with reductions in self-reported cigarettes per day (r=0.6). The effect of nicotine in nicotine patches was not statistically significant (patch nicotine vs. placebo difference in CO change = -0.1 ppm; 90% CI (-7.8 ppm, 7.6 ppm)).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of nicotine in ENDS was associated with a large reduction in smoking. Additional studies will be needed to determine whether there may be additive effects of nicotine ENDS and nicotine patches on smoking abstinence.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of nicotine chewing gum and nicotine patches as nicotine replacement therapy using salivary cotinine levels as a biochemical validation measure

Background

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and habit cessation counseling are considered the mainstay treatment for high nicotine dependence smokers. However, adherence to NRT is very poor. Among the NRTs, nicotine gums and nicotine patches are the most widely available. This study mainly evaluates the efficacy of nicotine gum and nicotine patches as NRT using salivary cotinine levels as a biochemical validation measure.

Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 72 known smokers who were willing to receive nicotine replacement therapy for cessation of smoking habits. The sample was divided into two groups: Group 1 tobacco smokers were offered nicotine chewing gum, and group 2 tobacco smokers were offered nicotine patches. Both groups received treatment for 12 weeks. At baseline and at the end of the trial period, the saliva samples were analyzed for cotinine levels using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The severity of smoking was assessed using the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND).

Results

The quit rate was higher in the nicotine patch group compared with the nicotine gum group. On comparison of week one vs week twelve in the nicotine group nicotine gum group showed (CI: 18.10 to 13.83) and in the patch group (CI: 7.754 to 6.56) with P < 0.001. The pre- and post-cotinine estimation was significantly reduced for nicotine patches compared with nicotine gums, and patient compliance also yielded better results for nicotine patches.

Conclusion

This study depicts that nicotine patches were better adhered to in comparison with nicotine gums, and salivary cotinine level is an effective biochemical validation measure.

Novel rapid-acting sublingual nicotine tablet as a cigarette substitution strategy

RATIONALE

Current nicotine replacement products provide a much slower onset of nicotine delivery than cigarettes, and hence are only marginally effective at supplanting cigarette smoking. Therefore, more effective forms of nicotine replacement are needed.

OBJECTIVES

This initial investigation characterized the pharmacokinetic (PK) and subjective effects of a novel sublingual (SL) nicotine tablet designed to deliver nicotine more rapidly to the bloodstream of smokers.

METHODS

Study 1 (N = 6) characterized the pharmacokinetics of a 2 mg nicotine SL tablet in comparison to an FDA-approved, marketed 2 mg nicotine lozenge. Study 2 (N = 24) assessed subjective responses of smokers to a single use of a 1 mg and 2 mg SL tablet.

RESULTS

Study 1 found that the time to maximum blood nicotine concentrations was significantly shorter for the SL tablet (14 min) than for the lozenge (82 min), and the initial rate of nicotine absorption was higher (0.4 ng/mL*min vs. 0.0 ng/mL*min), supporting the hypothesis that the SL tablet delivered nicotine more rapidly. Study 2 found that participants reported immediate relief of nicotine withdrawal symptoms after tablet administration, and craving reduction after the 2 mg tablet approached the degree reported for their usual brands of cigarettes (4.2 vs. 4.6 on a 7-point scale). Other subjective responses showed the tablet to be an appealing alternative to smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel SL tablet studied shows promise as a nicotine substitution strategy for tobacco harm reduction and smoking cessation treatment. Additional studies are warranted to further investigate the potential of this new approach.

Using the Intranasal Route to Administer Drugs to Treat Neurological and Psychiatric Illnesses: Rationale, Successes, and Future Needs

While the intranasal administration of drugs to the brain has been gaining both research attention and regulatory success over the past several years, key fundamental and translational challenges remain to fully leveraging the promise of this drug delivery pathway for improving the treatment of various neurological and psychiatric illnesses. In response, this review highlights the current state of understanding of the nose-to-brain drug delivery pathway and how both biological and clinical barriers to drug transport using the pathway can been addressed, as illustrated by demonstrations of how currently approved intranasal sprays leverage these pathways to enable the design of successful therapies. Moving forward, aiming to better exploit the understanding of this fundamental pathway, we also outline the development of nanoparticle systems that show improvement in delivering approved drugs to the brain and how engineered nanoparticle formulations could aid in breakthroughs in terms of delivering emerging drugs and therapeutics while avoiding systemic adverse effects.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2').

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk.  An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study  found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I² = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I² = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I² = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I² = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I² = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I² = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I² = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I² = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I² = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I² = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I² = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I² = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I² = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.

How health inequalities accumulate and combine to affect treatment value: A distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions

INTRODUCTION

Reduction of health inequality is a goal in health policy, but commissioners lack information on how policies change health inequality. This study illustrates how decision models can be readily extended to produce information on health inequality impacts as well as for population health, using the example of smoking cessation therapies.

METHODS

We retrospectively adapt a model developed for public health guidance to undertake distributional cost effectiveness analysis. We identify and incorporate evidence on how inputs vary by area-level deprivation. Therapies are evaluated in terms of total population health, extent of inequality, and a summary measure of equally distributed equivalent health based on a societal value for inequality aversion. Last, we examine how accounting for social variation in different sets of parameters affects our results.

RESULTS

All interventions increase population health and increase the slope index ofinequality. At estimated levels of health inequality aversion for England, our resultsindicate that the increases in inequality are compensated by the health gains.

DISCUSSION

The inequality impacts are driven by higher benefits of quitting and higher intervention uptake amongst advantaged groups, despite the greater proportion of smokers in disadvantaged groups. Failure to account for differential effects between groups leadsto different conclusions about health inequality impact but does not alter conclusionsabout value for money.

Combined nicotine patch with gum versus nicotine patch alone in smoking cessation in Hong Kong primary care clinics: a randomised controlled trial

Background

The prevalence of daily cigarette smoking has dropped to 10% in Hong Kong (HK) in 2017, however, smoking still kills 5700 persons per year. Studies suggest that abstinence rates are higher with combined NRT than single NRT, although local data on safety and benefits of combined NRT are lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of combined NRT with single NRT among HK Chinese.

Methods

This is a one-year, two-arm, parallel randomised trial. Five hundred sixty smokers, who smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day for ≥1 year, were randomized to combined and single NRT. Combined NRT group received counseling and nicotine patch & gum. Single NRT group received counselling and nicotine patch. Primary outcome was abstinence rate measured as self-reported 7-day point prevalence with CO validated at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included smoking abstinence rates at 4, 12, & 26 weeks. Crude odds ratio and p-value were reported from logistic regression without adjustment; for trend analysis, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) and p-value were reported from Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) (controlling for time). All AORs were adjusted for age, sex, baseline CO and clusters.

Results

Abstinence rates at 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks were all higher in the combined NRT group (35.8, 21.9, 16.8, 20.1%) compared with the single NRT group (28, 16.8, 11.2, 14.3%). At 4 weeks, combined NRT group was more likely to quit smoking (OR 1.43, 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.05) than the single NRT group. From GEE analysis, combined NRT group had a significantly higher abstinence rate (23.6%) than the single NRT group (17.6%) across repeated measures at all-time points. Combined NRT group was more likely to quit smoking (OR 1.43, 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.77). No significant difference in the side effect profile was detected between groups.

Conclusions

Smokers given 8 weeks of combined NRT were more likely to quit smoking at 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks compared with single NRT. Combined NRT was as well tolerated as single NRT and it should be further promoted in our community.

Trial registration

NCT03836560 from ClinicalTrial.gov, 9 Feb 2019.

E-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy within the UK Stop Smoking Services: the TEC RCT

BACKGROUND

Over the past few years, a large number of smokers in the UK have stopped smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. So far, UK Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) have been reluctant to include e-cigarettes among their treatment options because data on their efficacy compared with the licensed medications are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the efficacy of refillable e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, when accompanied by weekly behavioural support.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial comparing e-cigarettes and NRT.

SETTING

Three sites that provide local SSSs.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were 886 smokers seeking help to quit smoking, aged ≥ 18 years, not pregnant or breastfeeding, with no strong preference to use or not to use NRT or e-cigarettes in their quit attempt, and currently not using NRT or e-cigarettes. A total of 886 participants were randomised but two died during the study (one in each study arm) and were not included in the analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

The NRT arm (n = 446) received NRT of their choice (single or combination), provided for up to 12 weeks. The e-cigarette arm (n = 438) received an e-cigarette starter pack and were encouraged to buy addtional e-liquids and e-cigarette products of their choice. Both arms received the same standard behavioural support. Participants attended weekly sessions at their SSS and provided outcome data at 4 weeks. They were then followed up by telephone at 6 and 12 months. Participants reporting abstinence or at least 50% reduction in cigarette consumption at 12 months were invited to attend for carbon monoxide (CO) validation. Participants/researchers could not be blinded to the intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was CO-validated sustained abstinence rates at 52 weeks. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included abstinence at other time points, reduction in smoke intake, treatment adherence and ratings, elicited adverse reactions, and changes in self-reported respiratory health. A cost-efficacy analysis of the intervention was also conducted.

RESULTS

The 1-year quit rate was 9.9% in the NRT arm and 18.0% in the e-cigarette arm (risk ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.58; p < 0.001). The e-cigarette arm had significantly higher validated quit rates at all time points. Participants in the e-cigarette arm showed significantly better adherence and experienced fewer urges to smoke throughout the initial 4 weeks of their quit attempt than those in the NRT arm, and gave their allocated product more favourable ratings. They were also more likely to be still using their allocated product at 1 year (39.5% vs. 4.3%, χ2 = 161.4; p < 0.001). Participants assigned to e-cigarettes reported significantly less coughing and phlegm at 1 year than those assigned to NRT (controlling for smoking status). A detailed economic analysis confirmed that, because e-cigarettes incur lower NHS costs than NRT and generate a higher quit rate, e-cigarette use is more cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The results may not be generalisable to other types of smokers or settings, or to cartridge-based e-cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the context of multisession treatment for smokers seeking help, e-cigarettes were significantly more effective than NRT. If SSSs provide e-cigarette starter packs, it is likely to boost their success rates and improve their cost-efficacy.

FUTURE WORK

The efficacy of e-cigarettes provided with different levels of support will show whether smokers should be encouraged to switch to vaping within support services or whether e-cigarettes can be recommended with less intensive or no support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60477608.

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. 23, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The trial was supported by the Cancer Research UK Prevention Trials Unit (grant A16893).

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking abstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I² = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I² = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I² = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I² = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I² = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I² = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.

Effectiveness and safety of nicotine patches combined with e-cigarettes (with and without nicotine) for smoking cessation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Evidence indicates e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking; however, more confirmatory trials are needed. To date, no trials have evaluated the effectiveness and safety of combining nicotine patches with e-cigarettes (with and without nicotine) for smoking cessation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a pragmatic, three-arm, community-based, single-blind, randomised trial undertaken in New Zealand. Eligible participants are daily/non-daily smokers, aged ≥18 years, naive e-cigarette users and motivated to quit smoking in the next 2 weeks. Participants (n=1809), recruited using multi-media advertising, are randomised to 14 weeks of (1) 21 mg nicotine patches (n=201); (2) 21 mg nicotine patches+18 mg/mL nicotine e-cigarette (n=804); or (3) 21 mg nicotine patches+nicotine free e-cigarette (n=804). Participants receive weekly withdrawal-oriented behavioural support calls for 6 weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome is self-reported biochemically verified continuous abstinence (CA) at 6 months post quit-date. The primary comparison is nicotine patch + nicotine e-cigarette versus nicotine patch + nicotine free e-cigarette, and the secondary comparison is nicotine patch versus nicotine patch +nicotine e-cigarette (90% power, p=0.05, to detect an absolute difference in 6 month CA rates of 8% and 15% respectively). Secondary outcomes, collected by phone interview at quit date, then 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-quit date, include self-reported CA, 7 day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes per day (if smoking, or when smoking for non-daily smokers), time to relapse (if returned to smoking), belief in ability to quit, use of other cessation support, side effects/serious adverse events, treatment compliance, seeking additional support around e-cigarette use, daily use of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes, use of treatment past 14 weeks, views on treatment and recommendation to others, weight and cost-per-quitter.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Northern A Health and Disability Ethics Committee approved the trial. Findings will be disseminated through publication, conference/meeting presentations, and media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02521662; Pre-results.

Smoking Cessation: A Comparison of Two Model Structures

BACKGROUND

Most economic evaluations of smoking cessation interventions have used cohort state-transition models. Discrete event simulations (DESs) have been proposed as a superior approach.

OBJECTIVE

We developed a state-transition model and a DES using the discretely integrated condition event (DICE) framework and compared the cost-effectiveness results. We performed scenario analysis using the DES to explore the impact of alternative assumptions.

METHODS

The models estimated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the intervention and comparator from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a lifetime horizon. The models considered five comorbidities: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. The state-transition model used prevalence data, and the DES used incidence. The costs and utility inputs were the same between two models and consistent with those used in previous analyses for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

RESULTS

In the state-transition model, the intervention produced an additional 0.16 QALYs at a cost of £540, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3438. The comparable DES scenario produced an ICER of £5577. The ICER for the DES increased to £18,354 when long-term relapse was included.

CONCLUSIONS

The model structures themselves did not influence smoking cessation cost-effectiveness results, but long-term assumptions did. When there is variation in long-term predictions between interventions, economic models need a structure that can reflect this.

Current and Emerging Pharmacotherapies for Cessation of Tobacco Smoking

Tobacco use disorder is a chronic illness. With its high comorbidity rate, it is a major cause of years of life lost or years lived with disability; however, it is also considered the most preventable cause of death in developed countries. Since the development of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in 1978, treatment options have continued to evolve and expand. Despite this, currently available treatments remain insufficient, with less than 25% of smokers remaining abstinent 1 year after treatment. In this article, we review existing and emerging smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, with a special emphasis on the most promising agents that are currently being investigated. A search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the PubMed, Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (August 2 to September 1, 2017) was undertaken for articles on smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, applying no language restrictions. More than 40 pharmacotherapies were reviewed including conventional pharmacotherapies-NRT, bupropion, and varenicline (all approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as first-line treatment of smoking cessation)-and novel therapies: cytisine, N-acetylcysteine, cycloserine, memantine, baclofen, topiramate, galantamine, and bromocriptine. Studies of combination NRT and varenicline showed the greatest smoking cessation rates. Clonidine and nortriptyline are second-line treatments used when first-line treatments fail or are contraindicated, or by patient preference. Some novel therapies, especially acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, cytisine, and N-acetylcysteine, display promising results. Because the results of randomized clinical trials were reported using varied end points and outcome measures, direct comparisons between different pharmacotherapies cannot easily be evaluated. Additional high-quality randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials with long-term follow-up, using validated sustained abstinence measures, are needed to find more effective smoking cessation aids.

Long-term effectiveness of mailed nicotine replacement therapy: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial 5-year follow-up

Background

Our group recently completed a randomized controlled trial, evaluating the efficacy of providing 5 weeks of free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; in the form of the nicotine patch) by expedited postal mail without behavioral assistance to regular adult smokers interested in receiving it. The findings revealed that mailed provision of nicotine patches resulted in more than a doubling of quit rates at a six-month follow-up compared to a no intervention control group. While this trial provided evidence for the effectiveness of mailed nicotine patches in promoting cessation, the findings speak only to the short term effectiveness of this approach. As relapse to smoking is known to occur beyond the 6 month period, it is important to evaluate whether the net benefit of NRT in naturalistic settings can be maintained long-term. The present study aims to perform a 5-year follow-up survey of participants in the original trial to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of mailed NRT.

Methods/Design

Trained interviewers will contact participants in the randomized controlled trial 5 years post-enrollment. A total of 924 participants will be eligible to be contacted. Interviewers will first assess participants’ smoking status and their level of nicotine dependence. Participants reporting not currently smoking will be asked whether they have smoked tobacco, even a puff, in the last 30 days (primary outcome measure: 30-day point prevalence abstinence), past 6 months (secondary outcome measure: prolonged 6-month abstinence), and since the 8-week follow-up survey (secondary outcome measure: > 4 year continuous abstinence). Interviewers will be blind to experimental condition at the time the primary outcome measure will be assessed. It is hypothesized that participants who received nicotine patches at baseline will display significantly higher quit rates at the 5-year follow-up as compared to participants who did not receive nicotine patches at baseline.

Discussion

If the study finds that the mailed distribution of free NRT is effective at promoting long-term cessation, it would provide further evidence to move forward with policies designed to make NRT treatment readily and freely available to smokers who request it.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01429129, Registered 2 September 2011; NCT03097445, Registered 25 March 2017.

Combination nicotine replacement therapy: strategies for initiation and tapering

Several studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for patients who wish to quit smoking. However, there is limited guidance with respect to initiation and tapering of combination NRT. We attempt to review the evidence and rationale behind combination NRT, present the dosing used in combination NRT studies, and propose a step-down approach for tapering of combination NRT with integration of behavioral strategies.

Combination Therapies for Smoking Cessation: A Hierarchical Bayesian Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Treatment guidelines recommend the use of combination therapies for smoking cessation, particularly behavioral therapy (BT) as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy. However, these guidelines rely on previous reviews with important limitations. This study's objective was to evaluate the efficacy of combination therapies compared with monotherapies, using the most rigorous data available.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacotherapies, BTs, or both were conducted. The Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases were systematically searched from inception to July 2015. Inclusion was restricted to RCTs reporting biochemically validated abstinence at 12 months. Direct and indirect comparisons were made in 2015 between therapies using hierarchical Bayesian models.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The search identified 123 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria (60,774 participants), and data from 115 (57,851 participants) were meta-analyzed. Varenicline with BT increased abstinence more than other combinations of a pharmacotherapy with BT (varenicline versus bupropion: OR=1.56, 95% credible interval [CrI]=1.07, 2.34; varenicline versus nicotine patch: OR=1.65, 95% CrI=1.10, 2.51; varenicline versus short-acting nicotine-replacement therapies: OR=1.68, 95% CrI=1.15, 2.53). Adding BT to any pharmacotherapy compared with pharmacotherapy alone was inconclusive, owing to wide CrIs (OR=1.17, CrI=0.60, 2.12). Nicotine patch with short-acting nicotine-replacement therapy appears safe and increases abstinence versus nicotine-replacement monotherapy (OR=1.63, CrI=1.06, 3.03). Data are limited concerning other pharmacotherapy combinations and their safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that combination therapy benefits may be less than previously thought. Combined with BT, varenicline increases abstinence more than other pharmacotherapy with BT combinations.

Combination Nicotine Metered Dose Inhaler and Nicotine Patch for Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

In order to replicate the rewarding effects of smoking, nicotine replacement therapies must deliver nicotine via the pulmonary route. We aimed to measure the efficacy of a simple pressurized metered dose inhaler containing nicotine combined with a nicotine patch for smoking cessation.

METHODS

Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled, parallel group trial conducted at the University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand. Five-hundred two adults (≥18 years) who smoked at least nine cigarettes per day, with a Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence ≥3 who wanted to quit, were randomized (1:1).

INTERVENTIONS

active nicotine pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) plus active nicotine patch, versus placebo pMDI plus active nicotine patch. Subjects were instructed to use the aerosols for 6 months when they felt an urge to smoke and the patches daily for 5 months, reduce their smoking and quit by the end of the fourth week. Subjects were followed for 7 months. The primary outcome was prolonged 6 month not smoked on 7 consecutive days, analyzed by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

For the primary outcome, 78/246 (31.71%) in the active group versus 46/256 (17.97%) in the control group were abstinent (odds ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.40 to 3.23). Adverse events were reported by 245/246 (99.6%) and 247/256 (96.5%) subjects in the active and control groups, respectively. Mild coughing which decreased with regular use was common with the nicotine aerosols.

CONCLUSION

Inhaled nicotine from a metered dose inhaler combined with a nicotine patch substantially improves abstinence for 6 months amongst adult nicotine dependant smokers wanting to quit.

IMPLICATIONS

In 2012, we published a systematic review of the use nicotine by inhalation in this journal. At that time we were unable to find any studies that had measured the effects of nicotine delivery by pMDI on smoking cessation, and we are not aware of any since 2012. Our study is the first to look at nicotine by pMDI in smoking cessation. The present trial demonstrates that a simple nonproprietary nicotine inhaler, using relatively inexpensive standard technology, increases smoking cessation rates over and above nicotine patch therapy, and could usefully enhance nicotine replacement in smoking cessation treatment.

Time-varying processes involved in smoking lapse in a randomized trial of smoking cessation therapies

INTRODUCTION

Researchers have increasingly begun to gather ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data on smoking, but new statistical methods are necessary to fully unlock information from such data. In this paper, we use a new technique, the logistic time-varying effect model (logistic TVEM), to examine the odds of smoking in the 2 weeks after a quit attempt.

METHODS

Data are from a subsample of participants from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies who achieved initial abstinence (N = 1,106, 58% female). Participants completed up to 4 EMA assessments per day during the 2 weeks after their quit day. Predictors include baseline nicotine dependence, EMA measures of craving and negative affect, and whether an individual was assigned to a placebo, monotherapy, or combination therapy condition. Time-varying effects of these predictors were estimated using logistic TVEM.

RESULTS

Cravings were a significant predictor of smoking throughout the entire 2 weeks postquit, whereas the effect of baseline dependence became nonsignificant by the second week, and the effect of negative affect increased over time. Individuals in the monotherapy and combination therapy conditions had decreased odds of smoking compared with placebo in the first week postquit, but these differences were nonsignificant in the second week.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that pharmacotherapies are more effective compared with placebo earlier in a quit attempt, when the effect of baseline nicotine dependence on smoking is stronger, whereas the effect of craving and negative affect increased over time. Future cessation therapies may be more successful by providing additional support in the second week after quit attempt.

Combination rapid-acting nicotine mouth spray and nicotine patch therapy in smoking cessation

INTRODUCTION

Improved smoking cessation rates are urgently required if New Zealand is to reach its target of a smokefree nation by 2025, during which some 600,000 smokers will need to quit. Nicotine replacement therapy remains a core part of the pharmacological approach to smoking cessation. Oral nicotine solutions with rapid onset have recently become available. We have examined the effect of a nicotine spray and a nicotine patch on smoking cessation for 12 months.

METHODS

We enrolled potential participants-smokers wanting to quit aged 18-70 years, who smoked ≥9 cigarettes per day-with Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence score ≥3 in a double-blind trial in 3 trial sites. Smokers were randomized to a nicotine or placebo spray for 6 months, and all received nicotine patches daily for 5 months. They were followed at regular intervals for 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 1,423 subjects were randomized to nicotine oral spray (1mg of nicotine free base per spray) plus nicotine patch or a placebo spray and nicotine patch. The nicotine mouth spray plus nicotine patch showed significant improvements in prolonged abstinence for all measures to 6 months (7 consecutive days at each visit for 6 months: 15.5% vs. 10.6%; p = .006) for the combination versus placebo and nicotine patch. Thereafter, the differences were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of a nicotine mouth spray to a nicotine replacement patch in a population of smokers receiving a low level of behavioral support improved early quitting, but the effects were not sustained.

Clinical strategies to enhance the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a review of the literature

A number of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies have led to increases in quitting and thus to significant benefits to public health. Among existing medications, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been available the longest, has the largest literature base in support, and is the only option for over-the-counter access. While the short-term efficacy of NRT is well documented in clinical trials, long-term abstinence rates associated with using NRT are modest, as most smokers will relapse. This literature review examines emerging clinical strategies to improve NRT efficacy. After an initial overview of NRT and its FDA-approved indications for use, we review randomized trials in which clinical delivery of NRT was manipulated and tested, in an attempt to enhance efficacy, through (1) duration of use (pre-quit and extended use), (2) amount of use (high-dose and combination NRT), (3) tailoring to specific smoker groups (genotype and phenotype), or (4) use of NRT for novel purposes (relapse prevention, temporary abstinence, cessation induction). Outcomes vary within and across topic area, and we highlight areas that offer stronger promise. Combination NRT likely represents the most promising strategy moving forward; other clinical strategies offer conflicting evidence but deserve further testing (pre-quit NRT or tailored treatment) or offer potential utility but are in need of further, direct tests. Some areas, though based on a limited set of studies, do not offer great promise (high-dose and extended treatment NRT). We conclude with a brief discussion of emergent NRT products (e.g., oral nicotine spray, among others), which may ultimately offer greater efficacy than current formulations. In order to further lower the prevalence of smoking, novel strategies designed to optimize NRT efficacy are needed.

Long-term follow-up of a high- and a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting--a randomized trial

Background

Achieving lifelong tobacco abstinence is an important public health goal. Most studies use 1-year follow-ups, but little is known about how good these are as proxies for long-term and life-long abstinence. Also, intervention intensity is an important issue for development of efficient and cost-effective cessation treatment protocols.

The study aims were to assess the long-term effectiveness of a high- and a low-intensity treatment (HIT and LIT) for smoking cessation and to analyze to what extent 12-month abstinence predicted long-term abstinence.

Methods

300 smokers attending dental or general health care were randomly assigned to HIT or LIT at the public dental clinic. Main outcome measures were self-reported point prevalence, continuous abstinence (≥6 months), and sustained abstinence. The study was a follow-up after 5–8 years of a previously performed 12-month follow-up, both by postal questionnaires.

Results

Response rate was 85% (n=241) of those still alive and living in Sweden. Abstinence rates were 8% higher in both programs at the long-term than at the 12-month follow-up. The difference of 7% between HIT and LIT had not change, being 31% vs. 24% for point prevalence and 26% vs. 19% for 6-month continuous abstinence, respectively. Significantly more participants in HIT (12%) than in LIT (5%) had been sustained abstinent (p=0.03). Logistic regression analyses showed that abstinence at 12-month follow-up was a strong predictor for abstinence at long-term follow-up.

Conclusions

Abstinence at 12-month follow-up is a good predictor for long-term abstinence. The difference in outcome between HIT and LIT for smoking cessation remains at least 5–8 years after the intervention.

Trial registration number

NCT00670514

The cost-effectiveness of call-back counselling for smoking cessation

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of the Quitline, a call-back counselling service for smoking cessation, in the states of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis using a deterministic Markov model, and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted over a lifetime as the outcome measure.

POPULATION

Current smokers, motivated to quit.

RESULTS

Call-back counselling for smoking cessation provided by the Quitline is an intervention that both improves health with additional quitters, and achieves net cost savings due to the cost offsets being greater than the cost of the intervention. If cost offsets are excluded, the cost per quitter is $A773 (95% uncertainty interval $A769$-$A779), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $A294 per DALY (95% uncertainty interval $A293-$A298).

CONCLUSIONS

Call-back counselling is a cost-effective intervention for smoking cessation that can be provided by a centralised service for a large population, and to reach people in isolated communities.

A double-blind randomized clinical trial of different doses of transdermal nicotine patch for smoking reduction and cessation in long-term hospitalized schizophrenic patients

There have been many studies of smoking cessation using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) with schizophrenic patients, but none exploring the smoking-reduction effects of varying doses of NRT in long-stay patients with schizophrenia. This study aimed to examine the effect of different doses of the nicotine transdermal patch on smoking-reduction and cessation outcomes in long-term hospitalized schizophrenic patients. A total of 184 subjects participated in a randomized, controlled, double-blind 8-week clinical trial. Participants were randomized into two groups using two different doses of NRT: a high-dose NRT group (31.2 mg for the first 4 weeks, then 20.8 mg for 4 weeks, n = 92) or a low-dose NRT group (20.8 mg for 8 weeks, n = 92). The 7-day point prevalence of abstinence was 2.7 % (5/184). Participants in the low-dose NRT group reduced smoking by 3.1 more cigarettes on average than those in the high-dose group (p = 0.005). However, a repeated measures analysis of variance revealed that the main effect of changes in the number of cigarettes smoked, comparing the two types of treatment across periods, was not significant (p = 0.35, partial eta square = 0.018). In summary, among a cohort of chronic institutionalized schizophrenic patients, smoking cessation and reduction outcomes were not correlated with NRT dose, and the cessation rate was much lower than rates in similar studies. It indicates that long-term hospitalized schizophrenic patients have more difficulties with quitting smoking. More effective integrative smoking cessation programs should be addressed for these patients.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50 to 70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.

Why two smoking cessation agents work better than one: role of craving suppression

OBJECTIVE

This research examined why smokers receiving combination medication for smoking cessation are more likely to quit smoking than are those who receive either single agent (monotherapy) or placebo.

METHOD

Data were collected from 1,504 current smokers (58.2% women, 83.9% White; mean age = 44.67 years, SD = 11.08) participating in a cessation clinical trial who were randomized to 1 of 6 cessation pharmacotherapy conditions (placebo, nicotine patch, nicotine lozenge, bupropion, nicotine patch + nicotine lozenge, and bupropion + nicotine lozenge). Participants completed ecological momentary assessments 4 times a day, concerning 5 hypothesized mediators (negative affect, positive affect, craving, smoking expectations, and withdrawal) of pharmacotherapy effects. Medications were provided for 8-12 weeks post-quit along with 6 individual counseling sessions. Mediational paths were estimated via a novel Bayesian approach with estimation of multiple mediator models.

RESULTS

Biochemically confirmed 8-week abstinence was the outcome variable, with the monotherapy and combination pharmacotherapy composites producing 45% (n = 689) and 54% (n = 478) abstinence rates, respectively. The univariate models suggested that the combination treatments produced higher abstinence rates than the monotherapies because of greater suppression of withdrawal, craving, and smoking expectations. However, multiple mediator models showed that the suppression of craving on the quit day produced the strongest mediational effects and could account for the mediational effects of other tested variables.

CONCLUSION

Suppression of craving on the quit day significantly mediates the clinical effects of monotherapies and combination smoking pharmacotherapies, and the higher abstinence rates for combination therapy versus monotherapies appear primarily due to greater craving suppression.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. There are some interventions that have been designed to reduce weight gain when stopping smoking. Some smoking cessation interventions may also limit weight gain although their effect on weight has not been reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effect of: (1) Interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation.(2) Interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that may also plausibly affect weight on post-cessation weight change.

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL in September 2011.Part 2 - In addition we searched the included studies in the following "parent" Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 9, 2011 of the Cochrane Library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - We included trials of interventions that were targeted at post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow up point and/or smoking cessation six or more months after quit day.Part 2 - We included trials that had been included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews if they had reported weight gain at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on baseline characteristics of the study population, intervention, outcome and study quality. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow up between trial arms and was reported in abstinent smokers only. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post cessation weight gain (PCWG) resulted in a significant reduction in WG at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine (Mean difference (MD) -2.50 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.98 to -2.02, 1 study), phenylpropanolamine (MD -0.50 kg, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.20, N=3), naltrexone (MD -0.78 kg, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, N=2). There was no evidence that treatment reduced weight at 6 or 12 months (m). No pharmacological intervention significantly affected smoking cessation rates.Weight management education only was associated with no reduction in PCWG at end of treatment (6 or 12m). However these interventions significantly reduced abstinence at 12m (Risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, N=2). Personalised weight management support reduced PCWG at 12m (MD -2.58 kg, 95% CI -5.11 to -0.05, N=2) and was not associated with a significant reduction of abstinence at 12m (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.43, N=2). A very low calorie diet (VLCD) significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -3.70 kg, 95% CI -4.82 to -2.58, N=1), but not significantly so at 12m (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89, N=1). The VLCD increased chances of abstinence at 12m (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73, N=1). There was no evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy to allay concern about weight gain (CBT) reduced PCWG, but there was some evidence of increased PCWG at 6m (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.24). It was associated with improved abstinence at 6m (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.13, N=2) but not at 12m (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.86, N=2). However, there was significant statistical heterogeneity.Part 2: We found no evidence that exercise interventions significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29, N=4) however a significant reduction was found at 12m (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36, N=3).Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited PCWG at the end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.12 kg, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.77, N=7) (fluoxetine MD -0.99 kg, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.61, N=2). There was no evidence that the effect persisted at 6m (bupropion MD -0.58 kg, 95% CI -2.16 to 1.00, N=4), (fluoxetine MD -0.01 kg, 95% CI -1.11 to 1.10, N=2) or 12m (bupropion MD -0.38 kg, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.24, N=4). There were no data on WG at 12m for fluoxetine.Overall, treatment with NRT attenuated PCWG at the end of treatment (MD -0.69 kg, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.51, N=19), with no strong evidence that the effect differed for the different forms of NRT. There was evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity caused by one study which reported a 4.3 kg reduction in PCWG due to NRT. With this study removed, the difference in weight change at end of treatment was -0.45 kg (95% CI -0.66 to -0.27, N=18). There was no evidence of an effect on PCWG at 12m (MD -0.42 kg, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.08, N=15).We found evidence that varenicline significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.41 kg, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.19, N=11), but this effect was not maintained at 6 or 12m. Three studies compared the effect of bupropion to varenicline. Participants taking bupropion gained significantly less weight at the end of treatment (-0.51 kg (95% CI -0.93 to -0.09 kg), N=3). Direct comparison showed no significant difference in PCWG between varenicline and NRT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although some pharmacotherapies tested to limit PCWG show evidence of short-term success, other problems with them and the lack of data on long-term efficacy limits their use. Weight management education only, is not effective and may reduce abstinence. Personalised weight management support may be effective and not reduce abstinence, but there are too few data to be sure. One study showed a VLCD increased abstinence but did not prevent WG in the longer term. CBT to accept WG did not limit PCWG and may not promote abstinence in the long term. Exercise interventions significantly reduced weight in the long term, but not the short term. More studies are needed to clarify whether this is an effect of treatment or a chance finding. Bupropion, fluoxetine, NRT and varenicline reduce PCWG while using the medication. Although this effect was not maintained one year after stopping smoking, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a modest long-term effect. The data are not sufficient to make strong clinical recommendations for effective programmes to prevent weight gain after cessation.

Markov model of smoking cessation

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

Seven Year Follow-up of Smoking Cessation with Smokeless Tobacco

This study evaluated the tobacco use status of 63 subjects seven years after enrollment in a single-intervention smoking cessation study employing smokeless tobacco (SLT) as a nicotine substitute. Information about tobacco use and cessation attempts was obtained in interviews. The duration of follow-up and of smoke-free periods were derived from the date of the subject's enrollment and were expressed as person-years (p-y). Because the study focused on the use of SLT for smoking cessation, subjects who used SLT to quit were invited to return for verification (less than 10 parts per million of carbon monoxide in expired air). Follow-up was completed on 62 of 63 original subjects, classified according to tobacco use status at the end of the initial study. Of the 16 subjects who had quit smoking using SLT at one year, 12 were smoke-free at seven years. For all 16 subjects there was 106 p-y of follow-up, 97 (92%) of which were smoke-free. Of six subjects who had quit smoking at one year by a means other than SLT, four were smoke-free at seven years. This entire group had 42 p-y of follow-up, 34 (81%) of which were smoke-free. Of the 41 subjects who were smoking at one year, 12 had quit smoking by the seven-year mark, three of these subjects by using SLT. Total follow-up for this group was 284 p-y, of which 26 (9%) were smoke-free. Although the study is small, the long-term success rate of this pilot trial compares favorably with other cessation studies.

A novel tri-layered buccal mucoadhesive patch for drug delivery: assessment of nicotine delivery

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the potential of a novel delivery device for administering drugs that suffer from a high degree of first-pass metabolism.

Methods

A tri-layered buccal mucoadhesive patch, comprising a medicated dry tablet adhered to a mucoadhesive film, was prepared and characterized by its physicochemical properties and mucoadhesive strength. Nicotine was used as a model drug for the characterization of drug release and drug permeation. The influence of different adsorbents on the release of nicotine base from the patches was evaluated in vitro. Different molecular forms of nicotine (base and complex salt) were evaluated for their effect on release performance and permeation in vitro.

Key findings

Results demonstrated acceptable physicochemical and mucoadhesive properties for the tri-layered patch. Rapid release of nicotine was observed when nicotine base was incorporated with calcium sulfate dihydrate as the adsorbent. Patches incorporating nicotine base showed distinct advantages over those containing nicotine polacrilex, in terms of drug release (complete drug release achieved at 30 vs 60 min) and transmucosal permeation (37.28 ± 4.25 vs 2.87 ± 0.26% of the dose permeating through mucosa within 120 min).

Conclusions

The novel tri-layered patch can effectively adhere to, and deliver an active ingredient through the buccal mucosa, confirming its potential for buccal mucoadhesive drug delivery.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: current advances and research topics

Promoting smoking cessation is among the key medical interventions aimed at reducing worldwide morbidity and mortality in this century. Both behavioural counselling and pharmacotherapy have been shown to significantly increase long-term abstinence rates, and combining the two treatment modalities is recommended. This article provides an update on pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation in the general population. Current first-line agents used to support quit attempts are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline. Research suggests that abstinence rates can be increased by combining different forms of NRT or simultaneously administering NRT and non-nicotine medications. New treatments targeting the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor as well as other pathophysiological pathways involved in nicotine addiction are being developed, with nicotine vaccines now being tested in phase III clinical trials. Among the numerous research topics currently addressed, pharmacogenetics and tailoring therapy to specific groups of smokers look most promising. However, substantial progress is unlikely to be made unless social gradients impeding effective treatment of all smokers are overcome. In addition, public smoking bans and reimbursement of medication costs are crucial in reducing the future burden of disease caused by smoking on a global level.

Targeting nicotine addiction: the possibility of a therapeutic vaccine

Cigarette smoking is the primary cause of lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, reproductive disorders, and delayed wound healing all over the world. The goals of smoking cessation are both to reduce health risks and to improve quality of life. The development of novel and more effective medications for smoking cessation is crucial in the treatment of nicotine dependence. Currently, first-line smoking cessation therapies include nicotine replacement products and bupropion. The partial nicotinic receptor agonist, varenicline, has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation. Clonidine and nortriptyline have demonstrated some efficacy, but side effects may limit their use to second-line treatment products. Other therapeutic drugs that are under development include rimonabant, mecamylamine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, and dopamine D3 receptor antagonists. Nicotine vaccines are among newer products seeking approval from the FDA. Antidrug vaccines are irreversible, provide protection over years and need booster injections far beyond the critical phase of acute withdrawal symptoms. Interacting with the drug in the blood rather than with a receptor in the brain, the vaccines are free of side effects due to central interaction. For drugs like nicotine, which interacts with different types of receptors in many organs, this is a further advantage. Three anti-nicotine vaccines are today in an advanced stage of clinical evaluation. Results show that the efficiency of the vaccines is directly related to the antibody levels, a fact which will help to optimize the vaccine effect. The vaccines are expected to appear on the market between 2011 and 2012.

Efficacy of N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of nicotine dependence: a double-blind placebo-controlled pilot study

Relapse is the rule rather than the exception in smokers aiming to quit smoking. Recently, evidence has emerged that glutamate transmission plays an important role in relapse. N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a cysteine prodrug, restores glutamate homeostasis and appears to be a potential new treatment for substance dependence. In the current pilot study, the effects of NAC on short-term abstinence of smoking were investigated. Subjects were heavy smokers randomized to receive placebo (n = 12) or NAC 3,600 mg/day (n = 10) in a double-blind fashion during 3.5 days. Subjects were asked to stop smoking and report on nicotine craving, nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and cigarette smoking during treatment. At the end of the treatment, subjects were invited to smoke a cigarette and to rate the rewarding effect of this cigarette. There was no significant effect of NAC on craving (p = 0.23, d = 0.52) and only a statistical trend towards fewer withdrawal symptoms in the NAC condition (p = 0.07, d = 0.80). Interestingly, subjects receiving NAC rated the first cigarette after the abstinence period of 3.5 days as significantly less rewarding than subjects on placebo (p = 0.04, d = 0.85). It is concluded that the results of this pilot study are encouraging and suggest that NAC might be a promising new treatment option for relapse prevention in nicotine dependence.

Combination pharmacotherapy for stopping smoking: what advantages does it offer?

Globally, tobacco kills almost 5 million people around the world annually. Seven first-line pharmacotherapies are currently available and recommended by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco dependence, all of which have been proven to be effective for increasing tobacco abstinence rates when used as monotherapy. However, not all smokers are able to quit with single-drug therapy. Some smokers may benefit from combination therapy that includes the simultaneous use of different nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) or medications with different mechanisms of action (e.g. NRT and bupropion). Combination therapy with different types of NRT may provide a therapeutic advantage by increasing serum nicotine concentrations, and combination therapy with different drugs may capitalize on synergy obtained from two different mechanisms of action. However, controversy exists regarding this approach. Available data suggests that combination therapy may increase abstinence rates compared with monotherapy. However, the cost effectiveness of this approach has not been clearly demonstrated.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

The natural history of quitting smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey

AIMS

To describe the long-term natural history of a range of potential determinants of relapse from quitting smoking.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A survey of 2502 ex-smokers of varying lengths of time quit recruited as part of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey (Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, United States) across five annual waves of surveying.

MEASUREMENTS

Quitters were interviewed by telephone at varying durations of abstinence, ranging from 1 to 1472 days (about 4 years) post-quitting. Smoking-related beliefs and experiences (i.e. urges to smoke; outcome expectancies of smoking and quitting; and abstinence self-efficacy) were included in the survey.

FINDINGS

Most theorized determinants of relapse changed over time in a manner theoretically associated with reduced risk of relapse, except most notably the belief that smoking controls weight, which strengthened. Change in these determinants changed at different rates: from a rapidly asymptoting log function to a less rapidly asymptoting square-root function.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in patterns of change across time suggests that the relative importance of each factor to maintaining abstinence may similarly vary.

Predictors of smoking relapse by duration of abstinence: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey

AIM

To explore predictors of smoking relapse and how predictors vary according to duration of abstinence.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A longitudinal survey of 1296 ex-smokers recruited as part of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey (Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States). Measurements Quitters were interviewed by telephone at varying durations of abstinence (from 1 day to approximately 3 years) and then followed-up approximately 1 year later. Theorized predictors of relapse (i.e. urges to smoke; outcome expectancies of smoking and quitting; and abstinence self-efficacy) and nicotine dependence were measured in the survey.

FINDINGS

Relapse was associated with lower abstinence self-efficacy and a higher frequency of urges to smoke, but only after the first month or so of quitting. Both these measures mediated relationships between perceived benefits of smoking and relapse. Perceived costs of smoking and benefits of quitting were unrelated to relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenging perceived benefits of smoking may be an effective way to increase abstinence self-efficacy and reduce frequency of urges to smoke (particularly after the initial weeks of quitting), in order to reduce subsequent relapse risk.

Clinical utility of varenicline for smokers with medical and psychiatric comorbidity

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a costly and deadly disease afflicting an estimated 210 million people and accounting for 5% of all global deaths. Exposure to cigarette smoke is the greatest risk factor for COPD in the developed world. Smoking cessation improves respiratory symptoms and lung function and reduces mortality among patients with COPD. Cigarette smokers with COPD and other co-morbid conditions such as cardiovascular disease and psychiatric illnesses should receive comprehensive tobacco treatment interventions incorporating efficacious pharmacotherapies. Varenicline, an α₄β₂ nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, is the newest and most effective drug currently available to promote smoking cessation. In conjunction with behavioral interventions and clinical monitoring for potential side effects, varenicline offers great hope for reducing smoking-attributable death and disability.

A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial of 5 smoking cessation pharmacotherapies

CONTEXT

Little direct evidence exists on the relative efficacies of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, yet such evidence is needed to make informed decisions about their clinical use.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative efficacies of 5 smoking cessation pharmacotherapy interventions using placebo-controlled, head-to-head comparisons.

DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

Two urban research sites.

PATIENTS

One thousand five hundred four adults who smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day during the past 6 months and reported being motivated to quit smoking. Participants were excluded if they reported using any form of tobacco other than cigarettes; current use of bupropion; having a current psychosis or schizophrenia diagnosis; or having medical contraindications for any of the study medications.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to 1 of 6 treatment conditions: nicotine lozenge, nicotine patch, sustained-release bupropion, nicotine patch plus nicotine lozenge, bupropion plus nicotine lozenge, or placebo. In addition, all participants received 6 individual counseling sessions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence assessed at 1 week after the quit date (postquit), end of treatment (8 weeks postquit), and 6 months postquit. Other outcomes were initial cessation, number of days to lapse, number of days to relapse, and latency to relapse after the first lapse.

RESULTS

All pharmacotherapies differed from placebo when examined without protection for multiple comparisons (odds ratios, 1.63-2.34). With such protection, only the nicotine patch plus nicotine lozenge (odds ratio, 2.34, P < .001) produced significantly higher abstinence rates at 6-month postquit than did placebo.

CONCLUSION

While the nicotine lozenge, bupropion, and bupropion plus lozenge produced effects that were comparable with those reported in previous research, the nicotine patch plus lozenge produced the greatest benefit relative to placebo for smoking cessation.

Behavioral interventions in tobacco dependence

Patients who smoke represent a frustrating social paradox. The harmful effects of tobacco use have been well publicized in the past 50 years, yet more than one in five adults in the United States continue to smoke. A better understanding of the nature of nicotine addiction, of behavioral learning, and of common misconceptions regarding tobacco use treatment, can create new opportunities to impact smoking by offering clinicians novel methods of influence that have otherwise not be available within the traditional cessation approach. Understanding and dealing with the paradox can provide more productive and meaningful ways of improving not only health, but potentially also improving well-being.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Smoking cessation during alcohol treatment: a randomized trial of combination nicotine patch plus nicotine gum

AIMS

The primary aim was to compare the efficacy of smoking cessation treatment using a combination of active nicotine patch plus active nicotine gum versus therapy consisting of active nicotine patch plus placebo gum in a sample of alcohol-dependent tobacco smokers in an early phase of out-patient alcohol treatment. A secondary aim was to determine whether or not there were any carry-over effects of combination nicotine replacement on drinking outcomes.

DESIGN

Small-scale randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial with 1-year smoking and drinking outcome assessment.

SETTING

Two out-patient substance abuse clinics provided a treatment platform of behavioral alcohol and smoking treatment delivered in 3 months of weekly sessions followed by three monthly booster sessions.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 96 men and women with a diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and smoking 15 or more cigarettes per day.

INTERVENTION

All participants received open-label transdermal nicotine patches and were randomized to receive either 2 mg nicotine gum or placebo gum under double-blind conditions.

FINDINGS

Analysis of 1-year follow-up data revealed that patients receiving nicotine patch plus active gum had better smoking outcomes than those receiving patch plus placebo gum on measures of time to smoking relapse and prolonged abstinence at 12 months. Alcohol outcomes were not significantly different across medication conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study were consistent with results of larger trials of smokers without alcohol problems, showing that combination therapy (nicotine patch plus gum) is more effective than monotherapy (nicotine patch) for smoking cessation.

Peer pressure, psychological distress and the urge to smoke

Background:

Psychology and addiction research have found that cigarette smokers react with subjective and automatic responses to stimuli associated with smoking. This study examines the association between the number of cigarettes smokers consume per month and their response to cues derived from peer and psychological distress.

Methods:

We studied 1,220 adult past and current smokers drawn from a national face-to-face interview survey administered in 2004. We defined two types of cues possibly triggering a smoker to have a cigarette: peer cues and psychological cues. We used ordinary least square linear regressions to analyze smoking amount and response to peer and psychological distress cues.

Results:

We found a positive association between amount smoked and cue response: peer cues (1.06, 95%CI: 0.74–1.38) and psychological cues (0.44, 95%CI = 0.17–0.70). Response to psychological cues was lower among male smokers (−1.62, 95%CI = −2.26–−0.98), but response to psychological cues were higher among those who had senior high school level educations (0.96, 95%CI = 0.40–1.53) and who began smoking as a response to their moods (1.25, 95%CI = 0.68–1.82).

Conclusions:

These results suggest that both peer cues and psychological cues increase the possibility of contingent smoking, and should, therefore, be addressed by anti-smoking policies and anti-smoking programs. More specifically, special attention can be paid to help smokers avoid or counter social pressure to smoke and to help smokers resist the use of cigarettes to relieve distress.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00861276.

Varenicline and bupropion sustained-release combination therapy for smoking cessation

INTRODUCTION

Varenicline and bupropion sustained release (SR) are both safe and effective for the treatment of tobacco dependence and have different mechanisms of action. Combination pharmacotherapy with these agents may increase long-term smoking abstinence rates above what is observed with single-agent therapy.

METHODS

We enrolled cigarettes smokers in an open-label, one-arm, Phase II clinical trial to obtain preliminary data on the potential effectiveness and safety of combination therapy with varenicline and bupropion SR for the treatment of tobacco dependence. Eligible subjects received varenicline titrated to 1.0 mg by mouth twice daily and bupropion SR titrated to 150 mg by mouth twice daily for a total of 12 weeks along with behavioral therapy. Self-reported smoking abstinence was biochemically confirmed with expired carbon monoxide. A total of 38 smokers with a mean age of 49.1 years (SD = 12.4) who smoked an average of 19.9 cigarettes/day (SD = 7.8) for 30 years (SD = 12.3) were enrolled.

RESULTS

Seven-day point-prevalent smoking abstinence rates were 71% (95% CI = 54%-85%) at 3 months and 58% (95% CI = 41%-74%) at 6 months. Mean weight change during the medication phase among smoking-abstinent subjects was 1.6 kg (SD = 2.4). For both medications, 74% of subjects took at least 90% of the prescribed doses. The most common side effects were sleep disturbance (26%) and nausea (24%). No increase in depressive symptoms was observed, and no subjects reported suicidal ideation.

DISCUSSION

Combination therapy with varenicline and bupropion SR may be effective for increasing smoking abstinence rates above that observed with monotherapy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of combination therapy for smoking cessation

OBJECTIVES

To review published clinical trials on combination therapy for smoking cessation and determine the role of this regimen for treating tobacco dependence.

DATA SOURCES

Search terms included in this systematic review were nicotine replacement patch, nicotine replacement therapy, nicotine replacement gum, nicotine replacement inhaler, nicotine replacement nasal spray, nicotine replacement lozenge, bupropion SR (for sustained release), combination therapy, smoking cessation, and varenicline. Trials conducted from 1994 through October 10, 2007, were identified using EBM Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Medline.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials of various regimens for smoking cessation were included based on a large sample size (n > or = 200); use of first-line smoking cessation therapies; double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled design; and study duration of 1 year or more. The primary objective of the included clinical trials was to assess the efficacy of combination therapy. Studies that involved medications other than first-line therapies, adolescents, and post hoc analyses and that were not written in English were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Five clinical trials meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed. All of the studies included the use of the nicotine replacement patch along with one other agent. A total of 2,204 patients were treated. Combination therapy was significantly better than monotherapy at all pooled comparisons (P < 0.05). The aggregated relative risk of abstinence comparing combination with single treatment groups was 1.42 (95% CI 1.21-1.67), 1.54 (1.19-2.00), and 1.58 (1.25-1.99) at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Adverse effects with combination nicotine replacement therapy were minimal and similar to placebo or monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Current literature indicates that combination therapy is statistically better than monotherapy in smoking cessation treatment as assessed by 3-, 6-, and 12-month abstinence rates. Adverse effects and adherence to combination therapy are similar to monotherapy and placebo.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight, on average about 7 kg in the long term. There are some interventions that have been specifically designed to tackle smoking cessation whilst also limiting weight gain. Many smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and other interventions may also limit weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

This review is divided into two parts. (1) Interventions designed specifically to aid smoking cessation and limit post-cessation weight gain (2) Interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that may also plausibly have an effect on weight

SEARCH STRATEGY

Part 1: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register which includes trials indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch and PsycINFO, and other reviews and conference abstracts. Part 2: We searched the included studies of Cochrane smoking cessation reviews of nicotine replacement therapy, antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists (rimonabant), and exercise interventions, published in Issue 4, 2008 of The Cochrane Library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1: We included trials of interventions designed specifically to address both smoking cessation and post-cessation weight gain that had measured weight at any follow-up point and/or smoking six months or more after quitting.Part 2: We included trials from the selected Cochrane reviews that could plausibly modify post-cessation weight gain if they had reported weight gain by trial arm at end of treatment or later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on smoking and weight for part 1 trials, and on weight only for part 2. Abstinence from smoking is expressed as a risk ratio (RR), using the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. The outcome is expressed as the difference in weight change between trial arms from baseline. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking and inverse variance for weight using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We found evidence that pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing post-cessation weight gain resulted in a significant reduction in weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine (-2.50kg [-2.98kg to -2.02kg], fluoxetine (-0.80kg [-1.27kg to -0.33kg], phenylpropanolamine (PPA) (-0.50kg [-0.80kg to -0.20kg], naltrexone (-0.76kg [-1.51kg to -0.01kg])). No evidence of maintenance of the treatment effect was found at six or 12 months.Among the behavioural interventions, only weight control advice was associated with no reduction in weight gain and with a possible reduction in abstinence. Individualized programmes were associated with reduced weight gain at end of treatment and at 12 months (-2.58kg [-5.11kg to -0.05kg]), and with no effect on abstinence (RR 0.74 [0.39 to 1.43]). Very low calorie diets (-1.30kg (-3.49kg to 0.89kg] at 12 months) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (-5.20kg (-9.28kg to -1.12kg] at 12 months) were both associated with improved abstinence and reduced weight gain at end of treatment and at long-term follow up.Both bupropion (300mg/day) and fluoxetine (30mg and 60mg/day combined) were found to limit post-cessation weight gain at the end of treatment (-0.76kg [-1.17kg to -0.35kg] I(2)=48%) and -1.30kg [-1.91kg to -0.69kg]) respectively. There was no evidence that the weight reducing effect of bupropion was dose-dependent. The effect of bupropion at one year was smaller and confidence intervals included no effect (-0.38kg [-2.001kg to 1.24kg]).We found no evidence that exercise interventions significantly reduced post-cessation weight gain at end of treatment but evidence for an effect at 12 months (-2.07kg [-3.78kg, -0.36kg]).Treatment with NRT resulted in attenuation of post-cessation weight gain (-0.45kg [-0.70kg, -0.20kg]) at the end of treatment, with no evidence that the effect differed for different forms of NRT. The estimated weight gain reduction was similar at 12 months (-0.42kg [-0.92kg, 0.08kg]) but the confidence intervals included no effect.There were no relevant data on the effect of rimonabant on weight gain.We found no evidence that varenicline significantly reduced post-cessation weight gain at end of treatment and no follow-up data are currently available. One study randomizing successful quitters to 12 more weeks of active treatment showed weight to be reduced by 0.71kg (-1.04kg to -0.38kg). In three studies, participants taking bupropion gained significantly less weight at the end of treatment than those on varenicline (-0.51kg [-0.93kg to -0.09kg]).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions of general advice only are not effective and may reduce abstinence. Individualized interventions, very low calorie diets, and CBT may be effective and not reduce abstinence. Exercise interventions are not associated with reduced weight gain at end of treatment, but may be associated with worthwhile reductions in weight gain in the long term, Bupropion, fluoxetine, nicotine replacement therapy, and probably varenicline all reduced weight gain while being used. Although this effect was not maintained one year after quitting for bupropion, fluoxetine, and nicotine replacement, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a modest long-term effect. The data are not sufficient to make strong clinical recommendations for effective programmes.

Pharmacotherapy for tobacco dependence

Pharmacotherapy can provide effective treatment of tobacco dependence and withdrawal, and thereby facilitate efforts to achieve and sustain tobacco abstinence. Currently approved medications for smoking cessation are nicotine replacement medications (NRT), including nicotine patch, gum, lozenge, sublingual tablet, inhaler and nasal spray, the antidepressant bupropion, and the nicotinic partial agonist varenicline. This review discusses the pharmacological basis for the use of these medications, and the properties that might contribute to their efficacy, safety, and abuse liability. The review also discusses how pharmacological principles can be used to improve existing medications, as well as assist in the development of new medications.