Varenicline and suicidal behaviour: a cohort study based on data from the General Practice Research Database

Assessing the Labeling Information on Drugs Associated With Suicide Risk: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Drug-induced suicide (DIS) is a severe adverse drug reaction (ADR). Although clinical trials have provided evidence on DIS, limited investigations have been performed on rare ADRs, such as suicide.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review case reports on DIS to provide evidence-based drug information.

METHODS

We searched PubMed to obtain case reports regarding DIS published until July 2021. Cases resulting from drugs that are no longer used or are nonapproved, substance use, and suicidal intentions were excluded. The quality of each case report was assessed using the CASE (Case Reports) checklist. We extracted data regarding demographics, medication history, suicide symptoms, and symptom improvement and evaluated the causality of DIS using the Naranjo score. Furthermore, to identify the potential suicidal risk of the unknown drugs, we compared the results of the causality assessment with those of the approved drug labels.

RESULTS

In 83 articles, we identified 152 cases involving 61 drugs. Antidepressants were reported as the most frequent causative drugs of DIS followed by immunostimulants. The causality assessment revealed 61 cases having possible, 89 cases having probable, and 2 cases having definite relationships with DIS. For approximately 85% of suspected drugs, the risk of suicidal ADRs was indicated on the approved label; however, the approved labels for 9 drugs, including lumacaftor/ivacaftor, doxycycline, clozapine, dextromethorphan, adalimumab, infliximab, piroxicam, paclitaxel, and formoterol, did not provide information about these risks.

CONCLUSIONS

We found several case reports involving drugs without suicide risk information on the drug label. Our findings might provide valuable insights into drugs that may cause suicidal ADRs.

Predicting risk of suicidal behavior from insurance claims data vs. linked data from insurance claims and electronic health records

PURPOSE

Observational studies assessing effects of medical products on suicidal behavior often rely on health record data to account for pre-existing risk. We assess whether high-dimensional models predicting suicide risk using data derived from insurance claims and electronic health records (EHRs) are superior to models using data from insurance claims alone.

METHODS

Data were from seven large health systems identified outpatient mental health visits by patients aged 11 or older between 1/1/2009 and 9/30/2017. Data for the 5 years prior to each visit identified potential predictors of suicidal behavior typically available from insurance claims (e.g., mental health diagnoses, procedure codes, medication dispensings) and additional potential predictors available from EHRs (self-reported race and ethnicity, responses to Patient Health Questionnaire or PHQ-9 depression questionnaires). Nonfatal self-harm events following each visit were identified from insurance claims data and fatal self-harm events were identified by linkage to state mortality records. Random forest models predicting nonfatal or fatal self-harm over 90 days following each visit were developed in a 70% random sample of visits and validated in a held-out sample of 30%. Performance of models using linked claims and EHR data was compared to models using claims data only.

RESULTS

Among 15 845 047 encounters by 1 574 612 patients, 99 098 (0.6%) were followed by a self-harm event within 90 days. Overall classification performance did not differ between the best-fitting model using all data (area under the receiver operating curve or AUC = 0.846, 95% CI 0.839-0.854) and the best-fitting model limited to data available from insurance claims (AUC = 0.846, 95% CI 0.838-0.853). Competing models showed similar classification performance across a range of cut-points and similar calibration performance across a range of risk strata. Results were similar when the sample was limited to health systems and time periods where PHQ-9 depression questionnaires were recorded more frequently.

CONCLUSION

Investigators using health record data to account for pre-existing risk in observational studies of suicidal behavior need not limit that research to databases including linked EHR data.

Comparative clinical effectiveness and safety of tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and electronic cigarettes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To determine how varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and electronic cigarettes compare with respect to their clinical effectiveness and safety.

METHOD

Systematic reviews and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, in any setting, of varenicline, bupropion, NRT and e-cigarettes (in high, standard and low doses, alone or in combination) in adult smokers and smokeless tobacco users with follow-up duration of 24 weeks or greater (effectiveness) or any duration (safety). Nine databases were searched until 19 February 2019. Primary outcomes were sustained tobacco abstinence and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and treatment rankings and conducted meta-regression to explore covariates.

RESULTS

We identified 363 trials for effectiveness and 355 for safety. Most monotherapies and combination therapies were more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence; the most effective of these, estimated with some imprecision, were varenicline standard [OR = 2.83, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 2.34-3.39] and varenicline standard + NRT standard (OR = 5.75, 95% CrI = 2.27-14.88). Estimates were higher in smokers receiving counselling than in those without and in studies with higher baseline nicotine dependence scores than in those with lower scores. Varenicline standard + NRT standard showed a high probability of being ranked best or second-best. For safety, only bupropion at standard dose increased the odds of experiencing SAEs compared with placebo (OR = 1.27, 95% CrI = 1.04-1.58), and we found no evidence of effect modification.

CONCLUSIONS

Most tobacco cessation monotherapies and combination therapies are more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence, with varenicline appearing to be most effective based on current evidence. There does not appear to be strong evidence of associations between most tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and adverse events; however, the data are limited and there is a need for improved reporting of safety data.

Signals of Muscle Relaxant Drug Interactions Associated with Unintentional Traumatic Injury: A Population-Based Screening Study

BACKGROUND

Use of muscle relaxants is rapidly increasing in the USA. Little is understood about the role of drug interactions in the known association between muscle relaxants and unintentional traumatic injury, a clinically important endpoint causing substantial morbidity, disability, and death.

OBJECTIVE

We examined potential associations between concomitant drugs (i.e., precipitants) taken with muscle relaxants (affected drugs, i.e., objects) and hospital presentation for unintentional traumatic injury.

METHODS

In a series of self-controlled case series studies, we screened to identify drug interaction signals for muscle relaxant + precipitant pairs and unintentional traumatic injury. We used Optum's de-identified Clinformatics^® Data Mart Database, 2000-2019. We included new users of a muscle relaxant, aged 16-90 years, who were dispensed at least one precipitant drug and experienced an unintentional traumatic injury during the observation period. We classified each observation day as precipitant exposed or precipitant unexposed. The outcome was an emergency department or inpatient discharge diagnosis for unintentional traumatic injury. We used conditional Poisson regression to estimate rate ratios adjusting for time-varying confounders and then accounted for multiple estimation via semi-Bayes shrinkage.

RESULTS

We identified 74,657 people who initiated muscle relaxants and experienced an unintentional traumatic injury, in whom we studied concomitant use of 2543 muscle relaxant + precipitant pairs. After adjusting for time-varying confounders, 16 (0.6%) pairs were statistically significantly and positively associated with injury, and therefore deemed signals of a potential drug interaction. Among signals, semi-Bayes shrunk, confounder-adjusted rate ratios ranged from 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.04-1.62) for baclofen + sertraline to 2.28 (95% confidence interval 1.14-4.55) for methocarbamol + lamotrigine.

CONCLUSIONS

Using real-world data, we identified several new signals of potential muscle relaxant drug interactions associated with unintentional traumatic injury. Only one among 16 signals is currently reported in a major drug interaction knowledge base. Future studies should seek to confirm or refute these signals.

Comparison of Cardiovascular Safety for Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapies in a Population-Based Cohort in Australia

IMPORTANCE

Although concerns exist regarding a potential increased risk of cardiovascular events for smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, there is general consensus that any increased risk associated with their use would be outweighed by the benefits of smoking cessation; thus, clinical guidelines recommend that such pharmacotherapies be offered to everyone who wants to quit smoking. In the interest of minimizing risk to patients, prescribers need evidence indicating how these pharmacotherapies compare with one another in terms of cardiovascular safety.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among individuals initiating varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patches, or bupropion.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked pharmaceutical dispensing, hospital admissions, and death data was conducted in New South Wales, Australia. Participants included adults who were dispensed a prescription smoking cessation pharmacotherapy between 2008 and 2015 or between 2011 and 2015, depending on the availability of the pharmacotherapies being compared. Pairwise comparisons were conducted for risk of MACE among 122 932 varenicline vs 92 148 NRT initiators; 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators; and 102 817 NRT vs 6056 bupropion initiators.

EXPOSURE

First course of the smoking cessation pharmacotherapy of interest.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACE. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with high-dimensional propensity scores was used to account for potential confounding. Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust variance were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Data were analyzed January 24, 2019, to September 1, 2021.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of included individuals ranged from 41.9 (14.2) to 49.8 (14.9) years, and the proportion of women ranged from 42.8% (52 702 of 123 128) to 52.2% (53 693 of 102 913). The comparison of 122 932 varenicline initiators and 92 148 NRT patch initiators showed no difference in the risk of MACE (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07) nor in the risk of the secondary outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.21) and stroke (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45-1.14). However, decreased risk of cardiovascular death was found among varenicline initiators (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79). The results of comparisons involving bupropion were inconclusive owing to wide confidence intervals (eg, risk of MACE: 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.53-1.41]; 102 817 NRT patch vs 6056 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.39-1.62]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The finding of this cohort study that varenicline and NRT patch use have similar risk of MACE suggests that varenicline, the most efficacious smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, may be prescribed instead of NRT patches without increasing risk of major cardiovascular events. Further large-scale studies of the cardiovascular safety of varenicline and NRT relative to bupropion are needed.

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.

Risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events following treatment with varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink: a case-cross-over study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) are the most commonly used medications to quit smoking. Given their widespread use, monitoring adverse risks remains important. This study aimed to estimate the neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular risks associated with varenicline and NRT as used in routine UK care.

DESIGN

Case-cross-over study.

SETTING

UK-based electronic primary care records in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2006 to 2015 linked to hospital and mortality data sets.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult smokers (n =282,429) observed during periods when exposed and not exposed to either varenicline or NRT.

MEASUREMENTS

Main outcomes included suicide, self-harm, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death and cause-specific death [MI, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. In primary analyses, conditional logistic regression was used to compare the chance of varenicline or NRT exposure during the risk period (90 days prior to the event) with the chance of exposure during an earlier single reference period (91-180 days prior to the event) or multiple 90-day reference periods to increase statistical power.

FINDINGS

In the primary analyses, findings were inconclusive for the associations between varenicline and the main outcomes using a single reference period, while NRT was associated with MI [odds ratio (OR) = 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18-1.67]. Using multiple reference periods, varenicline was associated with an increased risk of self-harm (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.12-1.56) and suicide (OR = 3.56, 95% CI = 1.32-9.60) but a reduction in all-cause death (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.93). NRT was associated with MI (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.36-1.74), self-harm (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.18-1.44) and deaths from MI (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.11-2.10), COPD (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.14-1.56) and all causes (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.18-1.40) when using multiple reference periods.

CONCLUSIONS

There appear to be positive associations between (1) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and myocardial infarction, death and risk of self-harm and (2) varenicline and increased risk of self-harm and suicide, as well as a negative association between varenicline and all-cause death. The associations may not be causal. They may reflect health changes at the time of smoking cessation (nicotine replacement therapy is prescribed for people with cardiac problems) or be associated with quit attempts (exposure to both medicines was associated with self-harm).

Neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline in the general and COPD population with and without psychiatric disorders: a retrospective cohort study in a real-world setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the real-world association between varenicline and neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs) in general and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population with and without psychiatric disorders compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to strengthen the knowledge of varenicline safety.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Prescription database IADB.nl, the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

New users of varenicline or NRT among general (≥18 years) and COPD (≥40 years) population. Psychiatric subcohort was defined as people prescribed psychotropic medications (≥2) within 6 months before the index date.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The incidence of NPAEs including depression, anxiety and insomnia, defined by new or naive prescriptions of related medications in IADB.nl within 24 weeks after the first treatment initiation of varenicline or NRT.

RESULTS

For the general population in non-psychiatric cohort, the incidence of total NPAEs in varenicline (4480) and NRT (1970) groups was 10.5% and 12.6%, respectively (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00). For the general population in psychiatric cohort, the incidence of total NPAEs was much higher, 75.3% and 78.5% for varenicline (1427) and NRT (1200) groups, respectively (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99). For the COPD population (1598), there were no differences in the incidence of NPAEs between comparison groups in both the psychiatric cohort (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.44) and non-psychiatric cohort (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.20). Results from subgroup or sensitivity analyses also did not reveal increased risks of NPAEs but showed decreased risk of some subgroup NPAEs associated with varenicline.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to the concerns of a possible increased risk of NPAEs among varenicline users, we found a relative decreased risk of total NPAEs in varenicline users of the general population in psychiatric or non-psychiatric cohorts compared with NRT and no difference for NPAEs between varenicline and NRT users in smaller population with COPD.

Pharmacogenetics factors influencing smoking cessation success; the importance of nicotine metabolism

Introduction: Smoking remains a worldwide epidemic, and despite an increase in public acceptance of the harms of tobacco use, it remains the leading cause of preventable death. It is estimated that up to 70% of all smokers express a desire to quit, but only 3-5% of them are successful.Areas covered: The goal of this review was to evaluate the current status of smoking cessation treatments and the feasibility of implementing personalized-medicine approaches to these pharmacotherapies. We evaluated the genetics associated with higher levels of nicotine addiction and follow with an analysis of the genetic variants that affect the nicotine metabolic ratio (NMR) and the FDA approved treatments for smoking cessation. We also highlighted the gaps in the process of translating current laboratory understanding into clinical practice, and the benefits of personalized treatment approaches for a successful smoking cessation strategy.Expert opinion: Evidence supports the use of tailored therapies to ensure that the most efficient treatments are utilized in an individual's smoking cessation efforts. An understanding of the genetic effects on the efficacy of individualized smoking cessation pharmacotherapies is key to smoking cessation, ideally utilizing a polygenetic risk score that considers all genetic variation.

Mental health, smoking and poverty: benefits of supporting smokers to quit

Smoking rates among people with common mental health conditions remain around 50% higher than those in the wider population; this is a significant cause of the 10-20-year reduced life expectancy of people with mental health conditions. However, the effects of smoking go far beyond physical health. Research estimates that smokers with mental health conditions could be spending as much as £2200 a year on tobacco, pushing an estimated 130 000 people with a common mental disorder into poverty. The Government has set a target for England to be smokefree by 2030; however, without a dramatic increase in support, smokers with mental health conditions risk being left behind. Action on Smoking and Health provides the secretariat for the Mental Health & Smoking Partnership. The Partnership aims to reduce the inequality in smoking rates between people with mental health conditions and the wider population. It brings together Royal Colleges, third-sector organisations, trade unions and academia to review progress and highlight areas for further action.

Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in non-depressed adults: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation are widely prescribed, despite substantial concerns being raised regarding the potential increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) and neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with these treatments. This study aimed to assess the relative CV and neuropsychiatric safety between varenicline and bupropion compared with nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) in adults without a recent history of depression.

DESIGN

Retrospective new-user cohort study.

SETTING

US administrative data from 2006 to 2016 covering more than 100 million individuals.

PARTICIPANTS

Three study cohorts of new users, aged 18 years or older, limited to patients with no diagnosis or treatment for depression in the prior 12 months.

MEASUREMENTS

Propensity score adjusted log-binomial regression models. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalized CV events. Secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalized neuropsychiatric events and individual components of the primary outcome.

FINDINGS

A total of 618 497 participants were included in our study cohorts. Compared with NRT (n = 32 237), varenicline (n = 454 698) was associated with a 20% lower 1-year CV risk [adjusted relative risk (RR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.75-0.85], and bupropion (n = 131 562) was associated with a 25% lower 1-year CV risk (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.69-0.81). Varenicline was associated with a 35% lower 1-year risk of neuropsychiatric hospitalization versus NRT (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.59-0.72), and bupropion was associated with a 21% increase in 1-year risk of neuropsychiatric hospitalization (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.09-1.35).

CONCLUSION

Varenicline compared with nicotine replacement therapy does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular or neuropsychiatric hospitalizations. Bupropion appears to be associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and a higher risk of neuropsychiatric hospitalization, compared with nicotine replacement therapy.

Varenicline: mode of action, efficacy, safety and accumulated experience salient for clinical populations

Objective: Varenicline, a selective partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, is a smoking cessation pharmacotherapy that more than doubles the chance of quitting smoking at 6 months compared with placebo. This article reviews salient knowledge of the discovery, pharmacological characteristics, and the efficacy and safety of varenicline in general and in specific populations of smokers and provides recommendations to support use in clinical practice.Methods: Literature searches for varenicline were conducted using PubMed, with date limitations of 2000-2018 inclusive, using search terms covering the discovery, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety in different populations of smokers, alternative quit approaches and combination therapy. Selection of safety and efficacy data was limited to clinical trials, meta-analyses and observational studies.Results: Standard administration of varenicline is efficacious in helping smokers to quit, including smokers with cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Furthermore, varenicline efficacy may be improved with pre-loading, a gradual quitting approach for smokers unwilling or unable to quit abruptly, and extended treatment in smokers who have recently quit to help maintain abstinence. Initial concerns regarding the association of varenicline with increased risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events have been disproven after extensive clinical evaluations, and the benefit-risk profile of varenicline is considered favorable.Conclusions: Varenicline is efficacious and safe for all adult smokers with a range of clinical characteristics. Evidence suggests that approaches offering greater flexibility in timing and duration of treatment may further extend treatment efficacy and clinical reach.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy in people with neurodevelopmental disorders: A prospective cohort study

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of varenicline versus NRT for smoking cessation in people with neurodevelopmental disorders, compared to those without, at up to four years after exposure. We analysed electronic medical records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink using three different statistical approaches: multivariable logistic regression, propensity score matching (PSM), and instrumental variable analysis. Exposure was prescription of varenicline versus NRT and the primary outcome was smoking cessation at 2-years. We included 235,314 people aged 18 and above with eligible smoking cessation prescriptions in the effectiveness analysis. Smokers with neurodevelopmental disorders were 48% less likely (95% confidence interval: 42%, 54%) to be prescribed varenicline than NRT, compared to smokers without neurodevelopmental disorders. At 2-year follow-up, smokers with neurodevelopmental disorders prescribed varenicline were 38% more likely to quit smoking (95% confidence interval: 6%, 78%). Similar results were obtained using PSM and instrumental variable analyses. There was little evidence showing that varenicline increased the likelihood of mental health related adverse events in people with neurodevelopmental disorders. Varenicline is less likely to be prescribed to people with neurodevelopmental disorders despite results suggesting it is more effective than NRT and little evidence of increased likelihood of mental health related adverse events.

Treatment With Bupropion and Varenicline for Smoking Cessation and the Risk of Acute Cardiovascular Events and Injuries: a Swedish Case-Crossover Study

Introduction

Bupropion and varenicline are non-nicotine medications used for smoking cessation that mitigate craving and withdrawal symptoms. We aim to investigate whether these drugs increase the risk of selected acute adverse outcomes when used in medical practice.

Methods

Population-based case-crossover design using data from Swedish health and administrative registers. Adult individuals diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction, stroke, suicide, suicide attempt, fall injury, or that suffered a road traffic crash from 01.10.2006 for bupropion, or from 01.03.2008 for varenicline, until 31.12.2013 were included. Different lengths of exposure periods were analyzed within the 12-week hazard period prior to the adverse outcome (1-14, 15-28, and 29-84 days). The control period was matched using the interval preceding the hazard period (85-168 days), and breaking it up into equivalent periods (85-98, 99-112, and 113-168 days). Conditional logistic regression with each case considered as one stratum was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Neither medication was associated with consistent higher risks for any of the adverse outcomes. For bupropion and varenicline, respectively, in the 1-14 days hazard period, OR (95% CI) were: myocardial infarction 1.14 (0.55 to 2.34) and 1.06 (0.70 to 1.62); stroke 1.16 (0.39 to 3.47) and 1.26 (0.72 to 2.17), and traffic crashes 0.85 (0.39 to 1.85) and 1.48 (0.90 to 2.41). In the other periods, ORs were similar or even lower. For falls and suicidal events ORs were generally below one for both drugs.

Conclusion

The available evidence suggests that if prescription guidelines are properly followed regarding potential contraindications both of these medications could be considered relatively safe.

Implications

The reliable exposure and diagnosis assessment used in this nationwide register-based study, along with the number of cases gathered makes this sample one of the largest of its type to assess potential side effects associated with the use of these drugs. Neither medication was associated with consistent higher risks for any of the adverse outcomes studied.

Smoking cessation for people with severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are three times more likely to smoke than the wider population, contributing to widening health inequalities. Smoking remains the largest modifiable risk factor for this health inequality, but people with severe mental illness have not historically engaged with smoking cessation services. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a combined behavioural and pharmacological smoking cessation intervention targeted specifically at people with severe mental illness.

METHODS

In the smoking cessation intervention for severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+) trial, a pragmatic, randomised controlled study, we recruited heavy smokers with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia from 16 primary care and 21 community-based mental health sites in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, and smoked at least five cigarettes per day. Exclusion criteria included substantial comorbid drug or alcohol problems and people who lacked capacity to consent at the time of recruitment. Using computer-generated random numbers, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a bespoke smoking cessation intervention or to usual care. Participants, mental health specialists, and primary care physicians were unmasked to assignment. The bespoke smoking cessation intervention consisted of behavioural support from a mental health smoking cessation practitioner and pharmacological aids for smoking cessation, with adaptations for people with severe mental illness-such as, extended pre-quit sessions, cut down to quit, and home visits. Access to pharmacotherapy was via primary care after discussion with the smoking cessation specialist. Under usual care participants were offered access to local smoking cessation services not specifically designed for people with severe mental illnesses. The primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 12 months ascertained via carbon monoxide measurements below 10 parts per million and self-reported cessation for the past 7 days. Secondary endpoints were biologically verified smoking cessation at 6 months; number of cigarettes smoked per day, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and Motivation to Quit (MTQ) questionnaire; general and mental health functioning determined via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); and body-mass index (BMI). This trial was registerd with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN72955454, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 16, 2016, 526 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the bespoke smoking cessation intervention (n=265) or usual care (n=261). 309 (59%) participants were male, median age was 47·2 years (IQR 36·3-54·5), with high nicotine dependence (mean 24 cigarettes per day [SD 13·2]), and the most common severe mental disorders were schizophrenia or other psychotic illness (n=343 [65%]), bipolar disorder (n=115 [22%]), and schizoaffective disorder (n=66 [13%]). 234 (88%) of intervention participants engaged with the treatment programme and attended 6·4 (SD 3·5) quit smoking sessions, with an average duration of 39 min (SD 17; median 35 min, range 5-120). Verified quit data at 12 months were available for 219 (84%) of 261 usual care and 223 (84%) of 265 intervention participants. The proportion of participants who had quit at 12 months was higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group, but non-significantly (34 [15%] of 223 [13% of those assigned to group] vs 22 [10%] of 219 [8% of those assigned to group], risk difference 5·2%, 95% CI -1·0 to 11·4; odds ratio [OR] 1·6, 95% CI 0·9 to 2·9; p=0·10). The proportion of participants who quit at 6 months was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (32 [14%] of 226 vs 14 [6%] of 217; risk difference 7·7%, 95% CI 2·1 to 13·3; OR 2·4, 95% CI 1·2 to 4·6; p=0·010). The incidence rate ratio for number of cigarettes smoked per day at 6 months was 0·90 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·01; p=0·079), and at 12 months was 1·00 (0·89 to 1·13; p=0·95). At both 6 months and 12 months, the intervention group was non-significantly favoured in the FTND (adjusted mean difference 6 months -0·18, 95% CI -0·53 to 0·17, p=0·32; and 12 months -0·01, -0·39 to 0·38, p=0·97) and MTQ questionnaire (adjusted mean difference 0·58, -0·01 to 1·17, p=0·056; and 12 months 0·64, 0·04 to 1·24, p=0·038). The PHQ-9 showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months 0·20, 95% CI -0·85 to 1·24 vs 12 months -0·12, -1·18 to 0·94). For the SF-12 survey, we saw evidence of improvement in physical health in the intervention group at 6 months (adjusted mean difference 1·75, 95% CI 0·21 to 3·28), but this difference was not evident at 12 months (0·59, -1·07 to 2·26); and we saw no difference in mental health between the groups at 6 or 12 months (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·73, 95% CI -2·82 to 1·36, and 12 months -0·41, -2·35 to 1·53). The GAD-7 questionnaire showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·32 95% CI -1·26 to 0·62 vs 12 months -0·10, -1·05 to 0·86). No difference in BMI was seen between the groups (adjusted mean difference 6 months 0·16, 95% CI -0·54 to 0·85; 12 months 0·25, -0·62 to 1·13).

INTERPRETATION

This bespoke intervention is a candidate model of smoking cessation for clinicians and policy makers to address high prevalence of smoking. The incidence of quitting at 6 months shows that smoking cessation can be achieved, but the waning of this effect by 12 months means more effort is needed for sustained quitting.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

[Interventions for smoking cessation in 2018]

Smoking cessation treatments have been proved effective to stop smoking. For pharmacological treatments, nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) as well as bupropion allow to increase 6 month-abstinence rates by more than 80% in comparison with placebo while varenicline prescription doubles success rates in the same conditions. These results mean that for 10 smokers who quit with placebo, 18 are expected to quit with NRT or bupropion and 28 are expected to quit with varenicline. Varenicline is 50% more effective than nicotine patch and 70% more effective than nicotine gum. Nevertheless, a combination including NRT patch and oral nicotine forms is as effective as varenicline, thus leading to encourage the prescription of a combination NRT when NRT are chosen. For these three pharmacological treatments, cardiovascular as well as neuropsychiatric tolerance were not found statistically different from placebo in randomized controlled trials. Yet, bupropion prescription leads to an increasing risk of seizure (1/1000 to 1/1500). For behavioral treatment, motivational interviewing as well as cognitive behavior therapies are been proven to be effective to stop smoking but few smokers have access to this treatment. Smoking cessation mobile application and smartphone application seem to be promising in terms of effectiveness and might be useful to reach more smokers.

Ethical and Practical Considerations in Removing Black Box Warnings from Drug Labels

Boxed warnings-also known as "black box" warnings-can be a powerful tool in communicating drug risks to physicians and patients. The overall number of boxed warnings has grown in recent years as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved more drugs on the basis of limited pre-marketing information and as new safety issues for marketed drugs have been identified. Two recent manufacturers' petitions to remove boxed warnings on the drugs rosiglitazone (Avandia) and varenicline (Chantix) have led to divergent FDA decisions and revealed different considerations involved in boxed warning imposition and removal. For ethical and practical reasons, the FDA is justified in applying a higher standard for boxed warning removal than for imposition, as removal of a boxed warning may have unintended effects on physician and patient behavior. However, no guidelines on boxed warning removal currently exist. To promote safe use of approved prescription drugs, the FDA should adopt a uniform and transparent process governing decisions to impose or remove boxed warnings.

Sex Differences in Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy Comparative Efficacy: A Network Meta-analysis

Introduction

Converging clinical and biological evidence suggest sex is an important factor when selecting a pharmacological intervention for smoking cessation. The current investigation used network meta-analyses to estimate sex differences in the comparative efficacy of transdermal nicotine (TN), varenicline, and sustained release (SR) bupropion for smoking cessation.

Methods

Systematically searched previously published reviews and databases (Medline, PsycINFO, Embase) of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of bupropion-SR, TN, and varenicline for cigarette smoking cessation in primary care/general community samples were included.

Results

Thirty-two studies met all criteria and 28 (88%) were included in the final analyses, representing 14 389 smokers (51% female). Results of the full sample (women and men combined) mirrored those from a Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group network meta-analysis of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, showing VAR>TN=BUP. All medications improved quit rates over placebo for both women and men. Relative to placebo, varenicline efficacy was similar for women and men. Significant sex differences were evident when comparing varenicline versus TN and varenicline versus bupropion. For women, varenicline was more efficacious than TN (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.12,1.76) and bupropion (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.08,1.77). For men, outcomes for those treated with TN and bupropion were similar to those treated with varenicline. There were no differences in efficacy when comparing bupropion versus TN.

Conclusions

The advantage of varenicline over bupropion SR and TN is greater for women than men. Clinicians should strongly consider varenicline as the first option treatment for women. Among men, the advantage of varenicline over TN or bupropion is less clear.

Implications

This study provides information for the sex-informed treatment of nicotine addiction among cigarette smokers. Relative to placebo, women and men achieved similar outcomes when treated with varenicline; however the advantages of varenicline over transdermal patch and bupropion were greater for women compared to men.

Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric risks of varenicline and bupropion in smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Varenicline and bupropion are effective smoking cessation treatments, but there are concerns about their safety in smokers with COPD.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether varenicline and bupropion are associated with serious adverse cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric events in smokers with COPD.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, we used data from 14 350 patients with COPD included in the QResearch database, which holds data from 753 National Health Service general practices across England. We identified patients with COPD who received a prescription of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; N=10 426; reference group), bupropion (N=350) or varenicline (N=3574) in the period between January 2007 and June 2012. Patients were followed up for 6 months to compare incident cardiovascular (ie, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease and cardiac arrhythmias) and neuropsychiatric (ie, depression and self-harm) events using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for potential confounders. Propensity score analysis was used as an additional approach to account for potential confounding by indication. We also modelled the effects of possible unmeasured confounders.

RESULTS

Neither bupropion nor varenicline showed an increased risk of adverse events compared with NRT. Varenicline was associated with a significantly reduced risk of heart failure (HR=0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92) and depression (HR=0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86). Similar results were obtained from the propensity score analysis. Modelling of unmeasured confounding provided additional evidence that an increased risk of these adverse events was very unlikely.

CONCLUSION

In smokers with COPD, varenicline and bupropion do not appear to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, depression or self-harm in comparison with NRT.

Trends in utilization of smoking cessation agents before and after the passage of FDA boxed warning in the United States

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the FDA required a black box warning (BBW) on bupropion and varenicline, the two commonly prescribed smoking cessation agents due to reports of adverse neuropsychiatric events. We investigated if there was a decline in use of bupropion and varenicline after the BBW by comparing the percent using these medications before and after BBW.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2007 to 2014. The study sample consisted of adult smokers, who were advised by their physicians to quit smoking. We divided the time period into "pre-warning", "post-warning: immediate", and "post-warning: late." Unadjusted analysis using chi-square tests and adjusted analyses using logistic regressions were conducted to evaluate the change in bupropion and varenicline use before and after the BBW. Secondary analyses using piecewise regression were also conducted.

RESULTS

On an average, 49.04% of smokers were advised by their physicians to quit smoking. We observed a statistically significant decline in varenicline use from 22.1% in year 2007 to 9.23% in 2014 (p value<0.001). In the logistic (Adjusted Odds Ratio=0.36, 95% CI=0.22-0.58) and piecewise regressions (Odds Ratio=0.64, 95% CI=0.41-0.99) smokers who were advised to quit smoking by their physicians were less likely to use varenicline in the immediate post-BBW period as compared to pre-BBW period. While the use of varenicline continued to be significantly low in the late post-BBW period (AOR=0.45, 95% CI=0.31-0.64) as compared to the pre-BBW period, the trend in use as seen in piecewise regression remained stable (OR=0.90, 95% CI=0.75-1.06). We did not observe significant differences in bupropion use between the pre- and post-BBW periods.

CONCLUSION

The passage of the FDA boxed warning was associated with a significant decline in the use of varenicline, but not in the use of bupropion.

How do smoking cessation medicines compare with respect to their neuropsychiatric safety? A protocol for a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death in the UK and worldwide. Public health guidance recommends the use of varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as smoking cessation aids in the UK. Additionally, the first electronic cigarette has been licensed for use as a smoking cessation medicine. However, there are ongoing concerns about the safety of these medicines. We present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine how these smoking cessation medicines compare to each other with respect to their neuropsychiatric safety in adult smokers. Secondary aims include updating the evidence regarding the effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of these medicines for use in a cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include randomised controlled trials and observational studies with control groups comparing monotherapy with varenicline, bupropion, NRT or electronic cigarette and combination therapies to each other, placebo or usual care. The primary composite safety outcome will be serious adverse events, defined as events that resulted in death, were life threatening, required hospitalisation or resulted in significant disability or congenital/birth defect. The preferred effectiveness outcome will be sustained smoking cessation defined as abstinence for a minimum of 6 months as determined by biochemical validation. We will include trials identified by previous reviews and search relevant databases for newly published trials as well as contacting study authors to identify unpublished information. We will conduct fixed-effect and random-effect meta-analyses for each pairwise comparison of treatments and outcome; where these estimates differ, we will consider reasons for heterogeneity, quantified using the between-study variance (τ²). For each outcome, we will construct a NMA in a Bayesian framework which will be compared with the pair-wise results, allowing us to rank treatments. The effectiveness estimates from the NMA will be entered into a probabilistic economic model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this evidence synthesis study as it involves analysis of secondary data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies. The review will make an important contribution to the knowledge base around the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines. Results will be disseminated to the general public, healthcare practitioners and clinicians, academics, industry and policy makers.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016041302.

New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What Has Been Investigated, and What Is in the Pipeline?

A wide range of support is available to help smokers to quit and to aid attempts at harm reduction, including three first-line smoking cessation medications: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Despite the efficacy of these, there is a continual need to diversify the range of medications so that the needs of tobacco users are met. This paper compares the first-line smoking cessation medications with (1) two variants of these existing products: new galenic formulations of varenicline and novel nicotine delivery devices; and (2) 24 alternative products: cytisine (novel outside Central and Eastern Europe), nortriptyline, other tricyclic antidepressants, electronic cigarettes, clonidine (an anxiolytic), other anxiolytics (e.g. buspirone), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, supplements (e.g. St John's wort), silver acetate, Nicobrevin, modafinil, venlafaxine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), opioid antagonists, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) antagonists, glucose tablets, selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists, nicotine vaccines, drugs that affect gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission, drugs that affect N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, dopamine agonists (e.g. levodopa), pioglitazone (Actos; OMS405), noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors and the weight management drug lorcaserin. Six 'ESCUSE' criteria-relative efficacy, relative safety, relative cost, relative use (overall impact of effective medication use), relative scope (ability to serve new groups of patients) and relative ease of use-are used. Many of these products are in the early stages of clinical trials; however, cytisine looks most promising in having established efficacy and safety with low cost. Electronic cigarettes have become very popular, appear to be efficacious and are safer than smoking, but issues of continued dependence and possible harms need to be considered.

Varenicline and Risk of Self-Harm: A Nested Case-Control Study

Background

Smoking remains a serious public health concern. Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, including bupropion and varenicline, are proven means to increase quit rates. Post-marketing reports describing suicidal behaviours have raised concerns about the safety of varenicline. However, whether varenicline imparts a higher risk of suicide relative to bupropion remains uncertain.

Methods

A population-based nested case-control study in Ontario, Canada, from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2015 was conducted. Subjects were residents of Ontario aged 18 years and older with publicly funded drug coverage receiving either bupropion or varenicline for smoking cessation. We defined cases were those with a hospitalization or emergency department visit for suicide or non-fatal self-harm within 90 days of treatment. For each case, we identified up to fifty controls from the same cohort matched on age, sex, history of self-harm, use of selected psychotropic medications, alcohol abuse and prior admission to a mental health unit. Adjusted odds ratio were used to compare the risk of suicide/self-harm of varenicline to bupropion.

Results

We identified 331 cases and 5,346 matched-controls. Following adjustment for potential confounders, we found that varenicline was not associated with an increased risk of suicide/self-harm relative to bupropion (adjusted odds ratio 1.15; 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.87).

Interpretation

Treatment with varenicline does not appear to significantly increase the risk of suicide or self-harm relative to bupropion.

Varenicline for smoking cessation and reduction in people with severe mental illnesses: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To determine the effectiveness and safety of varenicline in treating tobacco dependence in patients with severe mental illness.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that compared varenicline with a placebo or an alternative intervention for smoking cessation or reduction.

SETTING

Both in- and out-patient settings in any country.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients aged 18 years and over with any type of severe mental illness. The systematic review included eight studies comprising 398 participants.

MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were (1) smoking cessation, (2) smoking reduction measured by changes in the number of cigarettes smoked per day and (3) number of psychiatric adverse events, which were collected at the end of treatment.

FINDINGS

The random-effect pooled estimates from the five studies that reported smoking-related outcomes found that varenicline is statistically superior to placebo in smoking cessation [risk ratios 4.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.96-9.56], and smoking reduction was higher in varenicline groups (mean reduced daily cigarettes was 6.39; 95% CI = 2.22-10.56). There is no significant difference regarding neuropsychiatric and other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline appears to be significantly more effective than placebo in assisting with smoking cessation and reduction in people with severe mental illness. There appears to be no clear evidence that varenicline was associated with an increased risk of neuropsychiatric or other adverse events compared with placebo.

Is real world evidence influencing practice? A systematic review of CPRD research in NICE guidances

BACKGROUND

There is currently limited evidence regarding the extent Real World Evidence (RWE) has directly impacted the health and social care systems. The aim of this review is to identify national guidelines or guidances published in England from 2000 onwards which have referenced studies using the governmental primary care data provider the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

METHODS

The methodology recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed. Four databases were searched and documents of interest were identified through a search algorithm containing keywords relevant to CPRD. A search diary was maintained with the inclusion/exclusion decisions which were performed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Twenty-five guidance documents were included in the final review (following screening and assessment for eligibility), referencing 43 different CPRD/GPRD studies, all published since 2007. The documents covered 12 disease areas, with the majority (N =7) relevant to diseases of the Central Nervous system (CNS). The 43 studies provided evidence of disease epidemiology, incidence/prevalence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance and health utilisation.

CONCLUSIONS

A slow uptake of RWE in clinical and therapeutic guidelines (as provided by UK governmental structures) was noticed. However, there seems to be an increasing trend in the use of healthcare system data to inform clinical practice, especially as the real world validity of clinical trials is being questioned. In order to accommodate this increasing demand and meet the paradigm shift expected, organisations need to work together to enable or improve data access, undertake translational and relevant research and establish sources of reliable evidence.

A comparison of neuropsychiatric adverse events during early treatment with varenicline or a nicotine patch

AIMS

We compared the risk of mental health episodes requiring hospitalization (primary aim) or out-patient clinic visits (secondary aim) associated with varenicline versus the nicotine patch (NP) in an era prior to psychiatric boxed warnings.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), USA.

PARTICIPANTS

VA patients with or without psychiatric comorbidities and a new prescription for varenicline (15 255) were propensity score-matched (1 : 2) to new users of NP (123 054) between 1 May 2006 and 30 September 2007, resulting in 11 774 and 23 548 patients in the varenicline and NP groups, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcomes were hospitalizations with a primary discharge diagnosis of a range of mental health disorders: depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, suicide attempt, post-traumatic stress disorder, other psychosis and drug-induced mental disorders. Secondary outcomes were out-patient clinic visits with a primary diagnosis of the above list of mental health disorders.

FINDINGS

Background characteristics of the treatment groups were similar after matching. There was no statistically significant difference in risk of hospitalization for any of the studied mental health disorders with varenicline compared with NP. Among secondary outcomes there was an increased risk of out-patient clinic visits for schizophrenia among patients who received varenicline [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.07, 1.51], this increase being evident only in those with a pre-existing mental health disorder.

CONCLUSION

In US VA patients studied prior to the boxed warning being implemented, use of varenicline for smoking cessation was not associated with a detectable increase compared with nicotine patches in hospitalization for any mental health outcomes. There was an increased rate of out-patient attendances with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia amounting to five per 100 person years of treatment. This increase was found only in patients with a pre-existing mental health disorder.

Flexible, dual-form nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline in comparison with nicotine patch for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Extended use of combined pharmacotherapies to treat tobacco dependence may increase smoking abstinence; few studies have examined their effectiveness. The objective of this study was to evaluate smoking abstinence with standard nicotine patch (NRT), extended use of combined formulations of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT+), or varenicline (VR).

METHODS

A total of 737 smokers, including those with medical and psychiatric comorbidities, were randomly assigned to one of the above three treatment conditions. The NRT group received 10 weeks of patches (21 mg daily maximum); the NRT+ group received patches (35 mg daily maximum) and gum or inhaler for up to 22 weeks; and the VR group received 1 mg twice daily for up to 24 weeks (22 weeks post target quit date). All participants also received six standardized 15-minute smoking cessation counseling sessions by nurses experienced in tobacco dependence treatment. The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-confirmed continuous abstinence rates (CAR) from weeks 5-52. Secondary outcomes were: CAR from weeks 5-10 and 5-22, and carbon monoxide-confirmed 7-day point prevalence (7PP) at weeks 10, 22, and 52. Adjusted and unadjusted logistic regression analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat procedures.

RESULTS

The CARs for weeks 5-52 were 10.0 %, 12.4 %, and 15.3 % in the NRT, NRT+, and VR groups, respectively; no group differences were observed. Results with 7PP showed that VR was superior to NRT at week 52 (odds ratio (OR), 1.84; 97.5 % Confidence Interval (CI), 1.04-3.26) in the adjusted intention-to-treat analysis. Those in the VR group had higher CAR at weeks 5-22 (OR, 2.01; CI, 1.20-3.36) than those in the NRT group. Results with 7PP revealed that both NRT+ (OR, 1.72; CI, 1.04-2.85) and VR (OR, 1.96; CI, 1.20-3.23) were more effective than NRT at 22 weeks. As compared to NRT monotherapy, NRT+ and VR produced significant increases in CAR for weeks 5-10 (OR, 1.52; CI, 1.00-2.30 and OR, 1.58; CI, 1.04-2.39, respectively); results were similar, but somewhat stronger, when 7PP was used at 10 weeks (OR, 1.57; CI, 1.03-2.41 and OR, 1.79; CI, 1.17-2.73, respectively). All medications were well tolerated, but participants in the VR group experienced more fatigue, digestive symptoms (e.g., nausea, diarrhea), and sleep-related concerns (e.g., abnormal dreams, insomnia), but less dermatologic symptoms than those in the NRT or NRT+ groups. The frequency of serious adverse events did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible and combination NRT and varenicline enhance success in the early phases of quitting. Varenicline improves abstinence in the medium term; however, there is no clear evidence that either varenicline or flexible, dual-form NRT increase quit rates in the long-term when compared to NRT monotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01623505 ; Retrospectively registered on July 13, 2011.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Factors influencing sustainable efficacy of smoking cessation treatment with varenicline beyond nine months

Pharmacological therapies play an important role in the success of interventions for smoking cessation; however, long-term follow-up studies with analysis of influencing factors are scarce. We examined the sustainable effects of smoking cessation therapy with varenicline, beyond nine months as well as the factors influencing effectiveness. Our sample consisted of 193 patients (126 men [68.2%], 67 women [31.8%], aged 26 to 85 years) who underwent varenicline therapy at the Nagoya University Hospital between January 2009 and October 2013. We examined their clinical records and also conducted a mail survey and evaluated success rates of smoking cessation therapy beyond nine months. Overall, 95.8% (185/193) of the patients had at least one complication. The response rate of questionnaires at the end of smoking cessation was 61.6% (119/193). The smoking cessation rate continued to decline for one year and leveled off afterwards. Smoking cessation rates tended to correlate with an increasing number of outpatient visits. Logistic regression analysis showed that two factors, young age and high Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) scores, were inversely correlated with success rates of smoking cessation. From the results of this study, aggressive intervention would needed for younger patients or patients with higher BDI-II scores.

Sex Differences in Varenicline Efficacy for Smoking Cessation: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Women have lower rates of quitting than men with both bupropion and nicotine replacement. It is unknown whether varenicline demonstrates differential efficacy for men and women. The purpose of this study was to conduct the first comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical trial data examining sex differences in the efficacy of varenicline for smoking cessation.

METHODS

Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO, 17 of 43 clinical trials of varenicline for smoking cessation published through December 31, 2014 were low-bias randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials. Data (n = 6710 smokers, 34% female, n = 16 studies, 96% of available data) was analyzed with Metafor program in R. Outcome endpoints were 7-day point-prevalence (PP) and continuous-abstinence (CA) at week 12 (end of treatment), week 24 (6-month follow-up), and week 52 (12-month follow-up).

RESULTS

Using placebo, women were less likely than men to quit (PP-12, CA-24; P < .05 for sex). Using varenicline, similar rates of abstinence for men and women were demonstrated for all six outcomes (eg, PP-12 abstinence rates were 53% in both women and men). Varenicline versus placebo outcomes demonstrated that varenicline was more effective for women for short and intermediate outcomes (PP-12, CA-12, CA-24; P < .05 sex × medication interaction). For end-of-treatment PP, varenicline was 46% more effective for women. For continuous abstinence, varenicline was 34% (CA-12) and 31% (CA-24) more effective for women.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike other smoking cessation medications, varenicline demonstrated greater efficacy among women smokers for short and immediate-term outcomes and equal efficacy for 1-year outcomes. Varenicline may be particularly useful for reducing the sex disparity typically seen in rates of smoking cessation.

IMPLICATIONS

Varenicline is currently the most effective FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and this is the first demonstration that women compared with men have a preferred therapeutic response for a smoking cessation medication when considering short-term outcomes. Importantly, this is also the first demonstration that women have similar rates of quitting to men when considering longer-term, 1-year outcomes.

Are Smoking Cessation Treatments Associated with Suicidality Risk? An Overview

Risk of suicidality during smoking cessation treatment is an important, but often overlooked, aspect of nicotine addiction research and treatment. We explore the relationship between smoking cessation interventions and suicidality and explore common treatments, their associated risks, and effectiveness in promoting smoking reduction and abstinence. Although active smokers have been reported to have twofold to threefold increased risk of suicidality when compared to nonsmokers,1–4 research regarding the safest way to stop smoking does not always provide clear guidelines for practitioners wishing to advise their patients regarding smoking cessation strategies. In this article, we review pharmacological and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) options that are available for people seeking to quit smoking, focusing on the relationship between the ability of these therapies to reduce smoking behavior and promote abstinence and suicidality risks as assessed by reported suicidality on validated measures, reports of suicidal ideation, behaviors, actual attempts, or completed suicides. Pharmacotherapies such as varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement, and CBTs, including contextual CBT interventions, have been found to help reduce smoking rates and promote and maintain abstinence. Suicidality risks, while present when trying to quit smoking, do not appear to demonstrate a consistent or significant rise associated with use of any particular smoking cessation pharmacotherapy or CBT/contextual CBT intervention reviewed.

Effectiveness of Varenicline in Psychiatric Patients with Co-Morbid Polysubstance Dependence

Introduction: Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) and mental health disorders (MHDs) have greater prevalence of smoking and suffer greater tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. Varenicline is the latest FDA-approved smoking-cessation agent and few studies have investigated the use of varenicline in this difficult-to-treat population.

Aims: This study examines the smoking cessation outcomes and tolerability of varenicline when used to help quit smoking in 16 patients enroled in both psychiatric and substance abuse programme.

Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 16 patient charts. Patient demographics, psychiatric disorder diagnoses, substance use history, dosing, side effects, number of cigarettes used pre/post varenicline use and the number of complete smoking cessation outcomes were tabulated.

Results: After varenicline intervention, 25% of those who completed treatment completely quit smoking. Thirty-one per cent were able to substantially cut back the amount that they smoked to one cigarette per day. The average reduction in cigarettes was 16 per day (64%), and all but one patient tolerated varenicline.

Conclusions: The authors observed reasonable clinical benefit when varenicline was used to help quit smoking in patients with comorbid SUDs and MHDs. Better-controlled future studies with larger sample sizes will help further determine clinical utility of varenicline in this difficult-to-treat nicotine-dependent population.

Non-psychotropic medication and risk of suicide or attempted suicide: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To establish which non-psychotropic medications have been assessed in relation to risk of suicide or attempted suicide in observational studies, document reported associations and consider study strengths and limitations.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Four databases (Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts) were searched from 1990 to June 2014, and reference lists of included articles were hand-searched. Case-control, cohort and case only studies which reported suicide or attempted suicide in association with any non-psychotropic medication were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcomes eligible for inclusion were suicide and attempted suicide, as defined by the authors of the included study.

RESULTS

Of 11,792 retrieved articles, 19 were eligible for inclusion. Five studies considered cardiovascular medication and antiepileptics; two considered leukotriene receptor antagonists, isotretinoin and corticosteroids; one assessed antibiotics and another assessed varenicline. An additional study compared multiple medications prescribed to suicide cases versus controls. There was marked heterogeneity in study design, outcome and exposure classification, and control for confounding factors; particularly comorbid mental and physical illness. No increased risk was associated with cardiovascular medications, but associations with other medications remained inconclusive and meta-analysis was inappropriate due to study heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether non-psychotropic medications are associated with increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide remains largely unknown. Robust identification of suicide outcomes and control of comorbidities could improve quantification of risk associated with non-psychotropic medication, beyond that conferred by underlying physical and mental illnesses.

Safety of Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Psychiatric and Addicts Patients

The safety of varenicline in the treatment of tobacco dependence has been questioned, in psychiatric patients. However, most published studies have not included psychiatric patients.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the safety of varenicline for smoking cessation in patients with psychiatric disorders.

METHODS

This is a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study. The sample is composed of three groups (patients with psychotic disorder, patients with alcohol dependence disorder and patients addicts in methadone maintenance treatment). Patients were recruited consecutively between September 2008 and June 2009 from 11 centers. All patients received a standardized smoking cessation program with varenicline and psychological support. Adverse events of the drug were monitored at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 of treatment. Bivariate analysis has been used.

RESULTS

None of the 90 patients included, presented a serious adverse event. The most frequent adverse effect was dry mouth (28.9%), followed by the presence of flatulence (27.8%), abnormal dreams (27.8%), and nausea (22%), especially between weeks 2 and 6 of treatment. None of the patients referred intense suicidal ideation, although two referred to moderate suicidal ideation, which was solved in one case and in the other, treatment was discontinued. Four participants (4.4%) abandoned treatment because of gastrointestinal symptoms. The initial dose of varenicline was reduced in 25% of patients during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal adverse events are the most incident in this sample of psychiatric patients and no exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms was detected, thus indicating a good safety record for varenicline use for smoking cessation in psychiatric patients.

HIV and smoking: associated risks and prevention strategies

High rates of smoking among persons living with HIV (PLWH) may reduce the effectiveness of HIV treatment and contribute to significant morbidity and mortality. Factors associated with smoking in PLWH include mental health comorbidity, alcohol and drug use, health-related quality of life, smoking among social networks and supports, and lack of access to care. PLWH smokers are at a higher risk of numerous HIV-associated infections and non-HIV related morbidity, including a decreased response to antiretroviral treatment, impaired immune functioning, reduced cognitive functioning, decreased lung functioning, and cardiovascular disease. Seventeen smoking cessation interventions were identified, of which seven were randomized controlled trials. The most effective studies combined behavioral and pharmacotherapy treatments that incorporated comprehensive assessments, multiple sessions, and cognitive-behavioral and motivational strategies. Smoking cessation interventions that are tailored to the unique needs of diverse samples and incorporate strategies to reduce the risk of relapse are essential to advancing health outcomes in PLWH.

Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric risks of varenicline: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Varenicline is an effective pharmacotherapy to aid smoking cessation. However, its use is limited by continuing concerns about possible associated risks of serious adverse cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric events. The aim of this study was to investigate whether use of varenicline is associated with such events.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we used data from patients included in the validated QResearch database, which holds data from 753 National Health Service general practices across England. We identified patients aged 18–100 years (registered for longer than 12 months before data extraction) who received a prescription of nicotine replacement treatment (NRT; reference group), bupropion, or varenicline. We excluded patients if they had used one of the drugs during the 12 months before the start date of the study, had received a prescription of a combination of these drugs during the follow-up period, or were temporary residents. We followed patients up for 6 months to compare incident cardiovascular (ischaemic heart disease, cerebral infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and cardiac arrhythmia) and neuropsychiatric (depression and self-harm) events using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for potential confounders (primary outcomes).

Findings

We identified 164 766 patients who received a prescription (106 759 for nicotine replacement treatment; 6557 for bupropion; 51 450 for varenicline) between Jan 1, 2007, and June 30, 2012. Neither bupropion nor varenicline showed an increased risk of any cardiovascular or neuropsychiatric event compared with NRT (all hazard ratios [HRs] less than 1. Varenicline was associated with a significantly reduced risk of ischaemic heart disease (HR 0·80 [95%CI 0·72–0·87]), cerebral infarction (0·62 [0·52–0·73]), heart failure (0·61 [0·45–0·83]), arrhythmia (0·73 [0·60–0·88]), depression (0·66 [0·63–0·69]), and self-harm (0·56 [0·46–0·68]).

Interpretation

Varenicline does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of documented cardiovascular events, depression, or self-harm when compared with NRT. Adverse events that do not come to attention of general practitioners cannot be excluded. These findings suggest an opportunity for physicians to prescribe varenicline more broadly, even for patients with comorbidities, thereby helping more smokers to quit successfully than do at present.

Funding

Egton Medical Information Systems, University of Nottingham, Ministry of Innovation, Science and Research of the German Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Commonwealth Fund.

Smoking Use and Cessation Among People with Serious Mental Illness

Smoking rates in people with serious mental illness (SMI) are disproportionately high compared to the general population. It is a leading contributor to the early mortality in this population. Smoking cessation rates are low in this group, though patients are motivated to quit. Unfortunately, health care providers do not always prioritize smoking cessation for this population. This review provides an overview of prevalence rates, biological effects that maintain smoking, and evidence-based treatments for smoking cessation in SMI. In addition, objective and qualitative data from a chart review of 78 patients with SMI prescribed smoking cessation treatment at one community mental health center are described. Of these, 30 (38.5 percent) were found to either quit (16/78) or reduce (14/78) smoking. Varenicline appeared to be particularly effective. Review of the literature and results of this study suggest that smoking cessation pharmacotherapies are effective for SMI patients and should be offered to those who smoke.

Mental health status of varenicline and bupropion users during a quit attempt compared to current smokers, other quitters, and non-smokers

BACKGROUND

Varenicline and bupropion are commonly prescribed non-nicotine containing smoking cessation agents. Post-marketing reports suggest an increased incidence of psychiatric disturbances associated with varenicline and bupropion. However, pre-existing psychiatric disorders may confound the association between these smoking cessation agents and psychiatric disturbances. We compared the mental health status of individuals using varenicline or bupropion to that of people quitting without medication, current smokers, and non-smokers while controlling for pre-existing conditions.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was used. Data were from 2006-2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Mental health status was assessed using the mental component summary (MCS) from the 12-item Short Form survey (SF-12v2), 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), and Kessler 6 Scale (K6). Differences in MCS score were compared using linear regression. Logistic regressions were used to compare positive screenings for depression using PHQ-2 and for psychological distress using K6.

RESULTS

Of 578 use episodes, 453 (78.38%) were bupropion and 125 (21.62%) were varenicline. After adjusting for potential confounders, mental health status of varenicline users was not different from current smokers or people who quit smoking without medication, but worse than non-smokers; bupropion was strongly associated with lower mental health status relative to all groups across all three measures.

CONCLUSION

Varenicline was not associated with worse mental health compared to smokers or those who quit without medication, after adjusting for pre-existing psychiatric disorders. Bupropion was associated with worse mental health status than smokers, former smokers who quit without medication, and nonsmokers, even after adjusting for pre-existing psychiatric disorders.

Health-care interventions to promote and assist tobacco cessation: a review of efficacy, effectiveness and affordability for use in national guideline development

AIMS

This paper provides a concise review of the efficacy, effectiveness and affordability of health-care interventions to promote and assist tobacco cessation, in order to inform national guideline development and assist countries in planning their provision of tobacco cessation support.

METHODS

Cochrane reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of major health-care tobacco cessation interventions were used to derive efficacy estimates in terms of percentage-point increases relative to comparison conditions in 6-12-month continuous abstinence rates. This was combined with analysis and evidence from 'real world' studies to form a judgement on the probable effectiveness of each intervention in different settings. The affordability of each intervention was assessed for exemplar countries in each World Bank income category (low, lower middle, upper middle, high). Based on World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, an intervention was judged as affordable for a given income category if the estimated extra cost of saving a life-year was less than or equal to the per-capita gross domestic product for that category of country.

RESULTS

Brief advice from a health-care worker given opportunistically to smokers attending health-care services can promote smoking cessation, and is affordable for countries in all World Bank income categories (i.e. globally). Proactive telephone support, automated text messaging programmes and printed self-help materials can assist smokers wanting help with a quit attempt and are affordable globally. Multi-session, face-to-face behavioural support can increase quit success for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco and is affordable in middle- and high-income countries. Nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, nortriptyline, varenicline and cytisine can all aid quitting smoking when given with at least some behavioural support; of these, cytisine and nortriptyline are affordable globally.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief advice from a health-care worker, telephone helplines, automated text messaging, printed self-help materials, cytisine and nortriptyline are globally affordable health-care interventions to promote and assist smoking cessation. Evidence on smokeless tobacco cessation suggests that face-to-face behavioural support and varenicline can promote cessation.

Quitting smoking before and after varenicline: a population study based on two representative samples of US smokers

BACKGROUND

Varenicline is known to have greater efficacy than other pharmacotherapy for treating nicotine dependence and has gained popularity since its introduction in 2006. This study examines if adding varenicline to existing pharmacotherapies increased the population cessation rate.

METHODS

Data are from two cross-sectional US Current Population Surveys-Tobacco Use Supplements (2003 and 2010-2011). Smokers and recent quitters 18 or older (N=34 869 in 2003, N=27 751 in 2010-2011) were asked if they had used varenicline, bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) in their most recent quit attempt. The annual cessation rate, as well as the per cent of smokers who had quit for ≥3 months, was compared between surveys.

RESULTS

Varenicline use increased from 0% in 2003 to 10.9% in 2010-2011, while use of bupropion decreased from 9.1% to 3.5%, and NRT from 24.5% to 22.4%. Use of any pharmacotherapy increased by 2.4 percentage points. Varenicline users stayed on cessation aids longer and were less likely to relapse than users of other pharmacotherapies in the first 3 months of a quit attempt, after which the difference was no longer significant. The change in annual cessation rate was negligible, from 4.5% in 2003 to 4.7% in 2010-2011 (p=0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of varenicline to the list of approved cessation aids has mainly led to displacement of other therapies. As a result, there was no meaningful change in population cessation rate despite a remarkable increase in varenicline use. The population impact of a new therapy is a function of more than efficacy or reach of the therapy.

Varenicline and risk of psychiatric conditions, suicidal behaviour, criminal offending, and transport accidents and offences: population based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To examine associations between varenicline and the incidence of a range of adverse outcomes.

DESIGN

Population based cohort study using within person analyses to control for confounding by indication.

SETTING

Whole population of Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

7,917,436 people aged 15 and over, of whom 69,757 were treated with varenicline between 2006 and 2009.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of new psychiatric conditions, suicidal behaviour, suspected and convicted criminal offending, transport accidents, and suspected and convicted traffic offences.

RESULTS

In the whole population, 337,393 new psychiatric conditions were diagnosed during follow-up. In addition, 507,823 suspected and 338,608 convicted crimes, 40,595 suicidal events, 124,445 transport accidents, and 99,895 suspected and 57,068 convicted traffic crimes were recorded. Within person analyses showed that varenicline was not associated with significant hazards of suicidal behaviour, criminal offending, transport accidents, traffic offences, or psychoses. However, varenicline was associated with a small increase in the risk of anxiety conditions (hazard ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.51) and mood conditions (1.31, 1.06 to 1.63), which was only seen in people with pre-existing psychiatric disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Concerns that varenicline is associated with an increased risk of many adverse outcomes, including suicidality and accidents, are not supported in this observational study. The small increase in risk of two psychiatric conditions in people with pre-existing psychiatric disorders needs to be confirmed using other research designs.

Smoking cessation in Asians: focus on varenicline

Smoking is a modifiable risk factor for morbidity and mortality caused by cancer, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, and many other diseases. Given the large population size and high prevalence of smoking in Asia, successful smoking cessation could potentially prevent the large number of premature deaths in Asians. However, most dependent smokers cannot successfully quit smoking due to nicotine addiction, and they need professional help and smoking cessation therapies. Varenicline is a highly selective partial agonist for the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor α4β2 subtype, which is believed to be responsible for mediating the reinforcing properties of nicotine. This article is a narrative review, which summarizes the smoking cessation efficacy, side effects, and cost utilities of varenicline in Asians. From this review, we conclude that varenicline is an effective medication that could assist smoking cessation in the Asian populations. The adverse events of varenicline are tolerable, and the most common events were nausea and abnormal dreams. Both the efficacy and tolerance of varenicline in Asians are similar to that in Western populations. Considering the cost utilities, varenicline should be recommended for use in smoking cessation and be covered by medical insurance in most Asian countries.

Risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with varenicline: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with use of varenicline compared with placebo in randomised controlled trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing study effects using two summary estimates in fixed effects models, risk differences, and Peto odds ratios.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials with a placebo comparison group that reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events (depression, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, suicide, insomnia, sleep disorders, abnormal dreams, somnolence, fatigue, anxiety) and death. Studies that did not involve human participants, did not use the maximum recommended dose of varenicline (1 mg twice daily), and were cross over trials were excluded.

RESULTS

In the 39 randomised controlled trials (10,761 participants), there was no evidence of an increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide (odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 8.57), suicidal ideation (0.58, 0.28 to 1.20), depression (0.96, 0.75 to 1.22), irritability (0.98, 0.81 to 1.17), aggression (0.91, 0.52 to 1.59), or death (1.05, 0.47 to 2.38) in the varenicline users compared with placebo users. Varenicline was associated with an increased risk of sleep disorders (1.63, 1.29 to 2.07), insomnia (1.56, 1.36 to 1.78), abnormal dreams (2.38, 2.05 to 2.77), and fatigue (1.28, 1.06 to 1.55) but a reduced risk of anxiety (0.75, 0.61 to 0.93). Similar findings were observed when risk differences were reported. There was no evidence for a variation in depression and suicidal ideation by age group, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, presence or absence of psychiatric illness, and type of study sponsor (that is, pharmaceutical industry or other).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found no evidence of an increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide, suicidal ideation, depression, or death with varenicline. These findings provide some reassurance for users and prescribers regarding the neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline. There was evidence that varenicline was associated with a higher risk of sleep problems such as insomnia and abnormal dreams. These side effects, however, are already well recognised.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014009224.

Varenicline as a Cause of Suicidal Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Postmarketing analyses and case reports have associated varenicline use with suicidal behaviors. This article reviews postmarketing analyses, case reports, clinical trials, uncontrolled observational studies, controlled observational studies, and studies in smokers with psychiatric problems that have tested this association.

METHOD

The author searched the literature for relevant reports via computer and other searches to undertake a qualitative, systematic review.

RESULTS

Two pooled analyses of 10 and 17 placebo-controlled trials failed to find more suicidal outcomes in the varenicline condition. Seven large uncontrolled observational studies reported low rates of suicide outcomes in varenicline users (<0.1%), and 1 study reported a higher rate (6%). Five large controlled observational studies did not find more suicide outcomes in varenicline users than in those using prescribed bupropion or over-the-counter nicotine medications. Small placebo-controlled trials and observational studies of smokers with current psychiatric problems did not find varenicline was associated with suicidal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the more valid study designs (pooled analyses of placebo controlled trials or large controlled observational studies), there is consistent evidence that varenicline either does not cause increased suicide outcomes, or if it does, the effect is very small. Warnings to consumers and clinicians should reflect, not just the results of postmarketing studies, but the results of the more valid research designs.

Reporting of drug induced depression and fatal and non-fatal suicidal behaviour in the UK from 1998 to 2011

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are distressing for patients and have important public health implications. We identified the drugs with the most frequent spontaneous reports of depression, and fatal and non-fatal suicidal behaviour to the UK's Yellow Card Scheme from 1998 to 2011.

METHODS

We obtained Yellow Card data from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for the drugs with the most frequent spontaneous reports of depression and suicidal behaviour from 1964 onwards. Prescribing data were obtained from the NHS Information Centre and the Department of Health. We examined the frequency of reports for drugs and estimated rates of reporting of psychiatric ADRs using prescribing data as proxy denominators from 1998 to 2011, as prescribing data were not available prior to 1998.

RESULTS

There were 110 different drugs with ≥ 20 reports of depression, 58 with ≥ 10 reports of non-fatal suicidal behaviour and 33 with ≥ 5 reports of fatal suicidal behaviour in the time period. The top five drugs with the most frequent reports of depression were the smoking cessation medicines varenicline and bupropion, followed by paroxetine (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor), isotretinoin (used in acne treatment) and rimonabant (a weight loss drug). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, varenicline and the antipsychotic medicine clozapine were included in the top five medicines with the most frequent reports of fatal and non-fatal suicidal behaviour. Medicines with the highest reliably measured reporting rates of psychiatric ADRs per million prescriptions dispensed in the community included rimonabant, isotretinoin, mefloquine (an antimalarial), varenicline and bupropion. Robust denominators for community prescribing were not available for two drugs with five or more suicide reports, efavirenz (an antiretroviral medicine) and clozapine.

CONCLUSIONS

Depression and suicide-related ADRs are reported for many nervous system and non-nervous system drugs. As spontaneous reports cannot be used to determine causality between the drug and the ADR, psychiatric ADRs which can cause significant public alarm should be specifically assessed and reported in all randomised controlled trials.

Effects of varenicline, nicotine or placebo on depressive symptoms in postmenopausal smokers

BACKGROUND

Varenicline carries a black box warning for neuropsychiatric adverse events.

OBJECTIVE

We examined varenicline use and past history of major depressive disorder (MDD) on depressive symptoms during smoking cessation.

METHOD

This is a secondary analysis of two smoking cessation studies in 152 postmenopausal women who received placebo or nicotine patch, or 78 women who received varenicline with relaxation. Lifetime history of MDD (LH-MDD) was assessed at baseline and women with current MDD were excluded. Center for Epidemiologic Study Depression scale (CESD) measured depressive symptoms at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Baseline CESD scores were 5.3 + 4.4. Those with a LH-MDD reported higher CESD scores (p > .001). Those taking varenicline reported lower scores over all time periods compared to nicotine or placebo (p < .01). The differences between varenicline and the other treatments remained when controlling for LH-MDD, indicating an independent effect. CESD scores were associated with concurrent smoking status (p < .001), and with withdrawal symptoms (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

CESD score were lower in those receiving varenicline, whether this is due to an anti-depressant effect, subject selection, use of relaxation or another cause is unknown. Varenicline does not increase depressive symptoms during smoking cessation in postmenopausal women without current MDD. Subjects with a LH-MDD are susceptible to developing depressive symptoms during smoking cessation, regardless of pharmacologic aid.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Pharmacologic aids did not increase depression symptoms in this select population of postmenopausal women without current depression. Smoking cessation does increase depressive symptoms in those with LH-MDD, though the degree of increase was not clinically meaningful.

Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline and bupropion compared with nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: study protocol of a retrospective cohort study using the QResearch general practice database

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable death and is the main risk factor of major diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The best treatment to help smokers quit is a combination of behavioural support with pharmacotherapy. Varenicline is the newest drug on the market and has been shown to be effective in the general smoking population and in smokers with COPD. The safety profile of varenicline was initially established using standard approaches to pharmacovigilance, but postmarketing reports have raised concerns about a possible association between the use of varenicline and cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric events. Although recent studies have not confirmed such an association, further research is needed given the large number of smokers who are being prescribed varenicline, including important subgroups such as smokers with COPD who may be particularly vulnerable to side effects of drugs. The aim of this study is to assess the cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline using data from the QResearch general practice (GP) database.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a retrospective cohort study in the QResearch GP database. Patients will be categorised into three exposure groups: prescription of (1) varenicline, (2) bupropion or (3) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT Rx; =reference group). We will separately consider major incident neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular outcomes that occur during 6 months of follow-up using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for confounders. Furthermore, propensity score analysis will be used as an analytical approach to account for potential confounding by indication.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This work involves analysis of anonymised, routinely collected data. The protocol has been independently peer-reviewed by the QResearch Scientific Board and meets the requirements of the Trent research ethics committee. We plan to disseminate the results from this study via articles in international peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant national and international health conferences.