Frequently Reported Adverse Events With Smoking Cessation Medications: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence, severity, and clinical course of frequently reported adverse events (AEs) after treatment with smoking cessation pharmacotherapies.

METHODS

This was a multinational, multicenter, post hoc analysis of frequently reported treatment-emergent AEs from a large, phase 4, double-blind, randomized, triple-dummy, placebo-controlled trial (EAGLES), conducted between November 30, 2011, and January 13, 2015, that included smokers with and without psychiatric disorders (N=8144). Treatments were varenicline 1 mg twice daily, bupropion sustained-release 150 mg twice daily, and nicotine patch 21 mg once daily with tapering (12-week treatment, 12-week nontreatment follow-up), with incidence, time to onset, and duration of frequently reported AEs (≥5% of participants in any treatment group) measured. Risk differences for AEs for varenicline and bupropion vs nicotine patch were compared.

RESULTS

Across frequently reported AEs, nausea, insomnia, abnormal dreams, anxiety, irritability, dry mouth, fatigue, and application site pruritus differed significantly in active treatment vs placebo groups. Risk differences were as follows: for nausea with varenicline vs nicotine patch, 15.50% (95% CI, 13.20% to 17.80%); for insomnia with bupropion vs nicotine patch, 2.58% (CI, 0.65% to 4.51%); and for abnormal dreams with varenicline and bupropion vs nicotine patch, -2.49% (CI, -4.35% to -0.64%) and -5.60% (CI, -7.27% to -3.93%), respectively. Frequently reported AEs of severe intensity and treatment discontinuation were experienced by less than 1.5% and less than 3% of participants across all groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Active treatments were well tolerated with comparable AE profiles. Most AEs are not clinically important, and prescribers can reassure patients that those experienced will be manageable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01456936.

Exercise for Smoking Cessation in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Postmenopausal smokers have difficulty quitting smoking and experience considerable weight gain with smoking cessation. We examined whether adjunctive smoking treatment with exercise, compared to a relaxation control condition, could improve cigarette abstinence, decrease cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), and ameliorate changes in body mass index (BMI) in postmenopausal smokers.

METHODS

Women (N = 301) signed informed consent and were randomized to treatment at two sites (Universities of Connecticut and Minnesota). We randomized groups of participants to a comprehensive group treatment program that included 12 weeks of varenicline and either a moderate exercise or relaxation component for 6 months. Participants were followed for a year after medication treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, 17.3% of patients reported carbon monoxide-verified continuous abstinence for the 9- to 12-week period, and 11.6% reported prolonged abstinence at 1 year, with no significant differences between treatment conditions. CPD reported at study visits showed significant main effects for time in weeks, for site, and for treatment. The Exercise condition reported smoking fewer CPD over time, and that advantage widened over time. In terms of BMI, significant effects for time in weeks, and for the interaction of Week × Treatment condition, reflected gradually increasing BMI in these women over time, but with the increase in BMI slower in the Exercise condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Exercise, compared to relaxation, was associated with a reduced BMI and CPD in postmenopausal women, but did not increase end of treatment or prolonged abstinence. Further research is needed to devise exercise programs that increase smoking cessation rates in postmenopausal women.

IMPLICATIONS

This study adds to the literature on the effectiveness of a moderate exercise intervention compared to a relaxation control condition as an adjunctive treatment for smoking cessation in postmenopausal women. Our exercise program did not increase end of treatment or prolonged abstinence rates in postmenopausal women; however, there was a beneficial effect on smoking reduction and reduced body mass index. Additional research is needed to devise exercise programs that increase smoking cessation rates in postmenopausal women.

Two-year efficacy of varenicline tartrate and counselling for inpatient smoking cessation (STOP study): A randomized controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Varenicline tartrate is superior for smoking cessation to other tobacco cessation therapies by 52 weeks, in the outpatient setting. We aimed to evaluate the long-term (104 week) efficacy following a standard course of inpatient-initiated varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling compared to Quitline-counselling alone.

METHODS

Adult patients (n = 392, 20-75 years) admitted with a smoking-related illnesses to one of three hospitals, were randomised to receive either 12-weeks of varenicline tartrate (titrated from 0.5mg daily to 1mg twice-daily) plus Quitline-counselling, (n = 196) or Quitline-counselling alone, (n = 196), with continuous abstinence from smoking assessed at 104 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 1959 potential participants were screened for eligibility between August 2008 and December 2011. The proportion of participants who remained continuously abstinent (intention-to-treat) at 104 weeks were significantly greater in the varenicline tartrate plus counselling arm (29.2% n = 56) compared to counselling alone (18.8% n = 36; p = 0.02; odds ratio 1.78; 95%CI 1.10 to 2.86, p = 0.02). Twenty-two deaths occurred during the 104 week study (n = 10 for varenicline tartrate plus counselling and n = 12 for Quitline-counselling alone). All of these participants had known or developed underlying co-morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to examine the efficacy and safety of varenicline tartrate over 104 weeks within any setting. Varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling was found to be an effective opportunistic treatment when initiated for inpatient smokers who had been admitted with tobacco-related disease.

Nicotine dependence (trait) and acute nicotinic stimulation (state) modulate attention but not inhibitory control: converging fMRI evidence from Go-Nogo and Flanker tasks

Cognitive deficits during nicotine withdrawal may contribute to smoking relapse. However, interacting effects of chronic nicotine dependence and acute nicotine withdrawal on cognitive control are poorly understood. Here we examine the effects of nicotine dependence (trait; smokers (n = 24) vs. non-smoking controls; n = 20) and acute nicotinic stimulation (state; administration of nicotine and varenicline, two FDA-approved smoking cessation aids, during abstinence), on two well-established tests of inhibitory control, the Go-Nogo task and the Flanker task, during fMRI scanning. We compared performance and neural responses between these four pharmacological manipulations in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design. As expected, performance in both tasks was modulated by nicotine dependence, abstinence, and pharmacological manipulation. However, effects were driven entirely by conditions that required less inhibitory control. When demand for inhibitory control was high, abstinent smokers showed no deficits. By contrast, acutely abstinent smokers showed performance deficits in easier conditions and missed more trials. Go-Nogo fMRI results showed decreased inhibition-related neural activity in right anterior insula and right putamen in smokers and decreased dorsal anterior cingulate cortex activity on nicotine across groups. No effects were found on inhibition-related activity during the Flanker task or on error-related activity in either task. Given robust nicotinic effects on physiology and behavioral deficits in attention, we are confident that pharmacological manipulations were effective. Thus findings fit a recent proposal that abstinent smokers show decreased ability to divert cognitive resources at low or intermediate cognitive demand, while performance at high cognitive demand remains relatively unaffected, suggesting a primary attentional deficit during acute abstinence.

Varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: an observational study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

BACKGROUND

Smoking is the leading avoidable cause of illness and premature mortality. The first-line treatments for smoking cessation are nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline. Meta-analyses of experimental studies have shown that participants allocated to the varenicline group were 1.57 times (95% confidence interval 1.29 to 1.91 times) as likely to be abstinent 6 months after treatment as those allocated to the nicotine replacement therapy group. However, there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of varenicline when prescribed in primary care. We investigated the effectiveness and rate of adverse events of these medicines in the general population.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of prescribing varenicline on smoking cessation rates and health outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

METHODS

We conducted an observational cohort study using electronic medical records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We extracted data on all patients who were prescribed varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy after 1 September 2006 who were aged ≥ 18 years. We investigated the effects of varenicline on smoking cessation, all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality and hospitalisation for: (1) chronic lung disease, (2) lung cancer, (3) coronary heart disease, (4) pneumonia, (5) cerebrovascular disease, (6) diabetes, and (7) external causes; primary care diagnosis of myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or prescription for anxiety; weight in kg; general practitioner and hospital attendance. Our primary outcome was smoking cessation 2 years after the first prescription. We investigated the baseline differences between patients prescribed varenicline and patients prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. We report results using multivariable-adjusted, propensity score and instrumental variable regression. Finally, we developed methods to assess the relative bias of the different statistical methods we used.

RESULTS

People prescribed varenicline were healthier at baseline than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy in almost all characteristics, which highlighted the potential for residual confounding. Our instrumental variable analysis results found little evidence that patients prescribed varenicline had lower mortality 2 years after their first prescription (risk difference 0.67, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to 1.46) than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. They had similar rates of all-cause hospitalisation, incident primary care diagnoses of myocardial infarction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. People prescribed varenicline subsequently attended primary care less frequently. Patients prescribed varenicline were more likely (odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.42 to 1.50) to be abstinent 6 months after treatment than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy when estimated using multivariable-adjusted for baseline covariates. Patients from more deprived areas were less likely to be prescribed varenicline. However, varenicline had similar effectiveness for these groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients prescribed varenicline in primary care were more likely to quit smoking than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy, but there was little evidence that they had lower rates of mortality or morbidity in the 4 years following the first prescription. There was little evidence of heterogeneity in effectiveness across the population.

FUTURE WORK

Future research should investigate the decline in prescribing of smoking cessation products; develop an optimal treatment algorithm for smoking cessation; use methods for using instruments with survival outcomes; and develop methods for comparing multivariable-adjusted and instrumental variable estimates.

LIMITATIONS

Not all of our code lists were validated, body mass index and Index of Multiple Deprivation had missing values, our results may suffer from residual confounding, and we had no information on treatment adherence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as NCT02681848.

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. 24, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prescribing Prevalence, Effectiveness, and Mental Health Safety of Smoking Cessation Medicines in Patients With Mental Disorders

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a prospective cohort study of the Clinical Practice Research Database to estimate rates of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) prescribing and the relative effects on smoking cessation, and mental health.

METHODS

We used multivariable logistic regression, propensity score matched regression, and instrumental variable analysis. Exposure was varenicline or NRT prescription. Mental disorders were bipolar, depression, neurotic disorder, schizophrenia, or prescriptions of antidepressants, antipsychotics, hypnotics/anxiolytics, mood stabilizers. Outcomes were smoking cessation, and incidence of neurotic disorder, depression, prescription of antidepressants, or hypnotics/anxiolytics. Follow-ups were 3, 6, and 9 months, and at 1, 2, and 4 years.

RESULTS

In all patients, NRT and varenicline prescribing declined during the study period. Seventy-eight thousand four hundred fifty-seven smokers with mental disorders aged ≥18 years were prescribed NRT (N = 59 340) or varenicline (N = 19 117) from September 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015. Compared with smokers without mental disorders, smokers with mental disorders had 31% (95% CI: 29% to 33%) lower odds of being prescribed varenicline relative to NRT, but had 19% (95% CI: 15% to 24%) greater odds of quitting at 2 years when prescribed varenicline relative to NRT. Overall, varenicline was associated with decreased or similar odds of worse mental health outcomes than NRT in patients both with and without mental disorders, although there was some variation when analyses were stratified by mental disorder subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation medication prescribing may be declining in primary care. Varenicline was more effective than NRT for smoking cessation in patients with mental disorders and there is not clear consistent evidence that varenicline is adversely associated with poorer mental health outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

Patients with mental disorders were less likely to be prescribed varenicline than NRT. We triangulated results from three analytical techniques. We found that varenicline was more effective than NRT for smoking cessation in patients with mental disorders. Varenicline was generally associated with similar or decreased odds of poorer mental health outcomes (ie, improvements in mental health) when compared with NRT. We report these findings cautiously as our data are observational and are at risk of confounding.

Effects of Varenicline Alone and in Combination With Low-dose Naltrexone on Alcohol-primed Smoking in Heavy-drinking Tobacco Users: A Preliminary Laboratory Study

OBJECTIVES

Heavy-drinking tobacco users are less likely to successfully quit smoking than their moderate-drinking counterparts, even when they are prescribed smoking cessation medication. One strategy for improving treatment outcomes in this subgroup of tobacco users may be to combine medication therapies to target both alcohol and tobacco use simultaneously. Adding naltrexone to frontline smoking cessation treatments may improve treatment outcomes in this group.

METHOD

This double-blind, placebo-controlled human laboratory study examined the effects of varenicline (2 mg/d) and varenicline (2 mg/d), combined with a low dose of naltrexone (25 mg/d) on alcohol-primed smoking behavior in a laboratory model of smoking relapse in heavy-drinking tobacco users (n = 30). Participants attended a laboratory session and received an alcohol challenge (target breath alcohol concentration = 0.030 g/dL). They completed a smoking delay task that assessed their ability to resist smoking followed by an ad libitum smoking phase (primary outcomes). They also provided ratings of subjective drug effects and craving, and carbon monoxide levels were measured after smoking (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

Participants receiving varenicline monotherapy delayed smoking longer and smoked fewer cigarettes than those on placebo. Participants receiving varenicline + low-dose naltrexone did not delay smoking longer than those receiving varenicline alone. Participants in both active medication arms smoked fewer cigarettes ad libitum than those receiving placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline can improve smoking outcomes even after an alcohol prime, supporting its use in heavy drinkers who wish to quit smoking. Findings did not support increased efficacy of combined varenicline + low-dose naltrexone relative to varenicline monotherapy.

Evaluating the temporal relationships between withdrawal symptoms and smoking relapse

Smokers attempting to quit often attribute smoking relapse to negative affect, craving, and other nicotine withdrawal symptoms. In addition, there is evidence that smoking relapse can increase these symptoms, particularly negative affect. To address this issue, we analyzed data from an 11-week smoking cessation clinical trial in which smokers (n = 1,246) were randomized to receive either nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, or placebo, combined with behavioral counseling. Using cross-lagged analyses, we examined the temporal bidirectional relationships between self-reported measures of affect, craving, and composite withdrawal symptoms and biochemically verified smoking abstinence. The relative strength of these temporal relationships was examined by comparing the explained variances of the models. The results showed that higher negative affect, craving, and composite withdrawal symptoms increased the likelihood of subsequent smoking relapse, and that smoking relapse led to subsequent increases in these same symptoms. A comparison of the explained variances found symptom predicting subsequent relapse models to be stronger than those where relapse predicted subsequent symptoms. Although the explained variance findings generally support a negative reinforcement conceptualization of nicotine dependence, the bidirectional relationship between symptoms and smoking relapse suggests that struggling with quitting smoking leads to significant negative affect, craving, and other withdrawal symptoms that do not quickly resolve. These findings highlight the importance of addressing specific symptoms within the context of smoking cessation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Nicotine Self-Administration as Paradigm for Medication Discovery for Smoking Cessation: Recent Findings in Medications Targeting the Cholinergic System

Tobacco kills every year approximately six million people as a direct result of direct use, and it is still considered one of the most excruciating threats for human health worldwide. The low successful rates of the currently available pharmacotherapies to assist in quitting tobacco use suggest there is a need for more effective treatments.The intravenous self-administration (IVSA) paradigm is considered the gold standard to study voluntary drug intake in animal models, including nicotine. The IVSA paradigm has been used to identify key mechanisms involved in the addictive properties of nicotine in both rodents and nonhuman primates. In this chapter we describe how the IVSA paradigm has served to further investigate the role of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) in the reinforcing properties of nicotine. Notably, this review will cover recent advances (i.e., research carried out during the past decade) using the IVSA paradigm, with a focus on the status of research on current smoking cessation medications (such as varenicline and bupropion) and of other nAChR ligands.The combination of the IVSA paradigm with pharmacological and genetic tools (e.g., knockout animals) has greatly contributed to our understanding of the role of specific subtype nAChRs in nicotine reinforcement processes. We also discuss some of the limitations of the IVSA paradigm so these can be taken into consideration when interpreting and designing new studies.

Adherence to Pharmacological Smoking Cessation Interventions: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Correlates and Barriers

Introduction

Efficacious pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation are available, but poor adherence to these treatments may limit these interventions overall impact. To improve adherence to smoking cessation interventions, it is first necessary to identify and understand smoker-level characteristics that drive nonadherence (ie, nonconformance with a provider's recommendation of timing, dosage, or frequency of medication-taking during the prescribed length of time).

Methods

We present a literature review of studies examining correlates of, or self-reported reasons for, nonadherence to smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. Studies were identified through PubMed-using MeSH terms, Embase-using Emtree terms, and ISI Web of Science.

Results and Conclusions

This literature review included 50 studies that examined nonpreventable (eg, sociodemographics) and preventable (eg, forgetfulness) factors associated with adherence to smoking cessation medication and suggestions for overcoming some of the identified barriers. Systematic study of this topic would be facilitated by consistent reporting of adherence and correlates thereof in the literature, development of consistent definitions of medication adherence across studies, utilization of more objective measures of adherence (eg, blood plasma levels vs. self-report) in addition to reliance on self-reported adherence.

Implications

This article provides the most comprehensive review to date on correlates of adherence to pharmacological smoking cessation interventions. Challenges and specific gaps in the literature that should be a priority for future research are discussed. Future priorities include additional research, particularly among vulnerable populations of smokers, developing standardized definitions of adherence and methods for measuring adherence, regular assessment of cessation pharmacotherapy adherence in the context of research and clinical practice, and development of novel treatments aimed at preventable barriers to medication adherence.

Discovery and development of varenicline for smoking cessation

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco use causes one premature death every six seconds. Current smoking cessation aids include nicotine replacement therapies, bupropion, and varenicline. Although more than 70% of smokers express a desire to quit, fewer than 3% remain abstinent for more than one year, highlighting a critical need for more efficacious smoking cessation treatments. Areas covered: The authors discuss the rationale, preclinical and clinical development of varenicline for smoking cessation. They cover the development of varenicline as a partial agonist at α4β2 receptors, the primary neural substrate for nicotine reward. Then, they discuss evidence from preclinical studies indicating varenicline's efficacy in blocking nicotine reward, followed by clinical trials demonstrating safety and efficacy in sustaining abstinence in smokers. Finally, they cover post-market surveillance, including caution in heavy machine operators, putative cardiovascular risk, and the repealed warning for adverse neuropsychiatric events. Expert opinion: Varenicline development was based on strong theoretical rationale and preclinical evidence. Clinical studies indicate that varenicline is safe and more effective in sustaining abstinence than placebo, bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies. However, given that continuous abstinence rates across studies remain low (18 ~ 30% with varenicline; 4 ~ 10% with placebo), novel and more effective medications targeting other nicotinic or glutamate receptors for smoking cessation are required.

Delayed Varenicline Administration Reduces Inflammation and Improves Forelimb Use Following Experimental Stroke

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological activation of the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway (CAP), specifically by activating α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, has been shown to confer short-term improvements in outcome. Most studies have investigated administration within 24 hours of stroke, and few have investigated drugs approved for use in human patients. We investigated whether delayed administration of varenicline, a high-affinity agonist at α7 nicotinic receptors and an established therapy for nicotine addiction, decreased brain inflammation and improved functional performance in a mouse model of experimental stroke.

METHODS

CSF-1R-EGFP (MacGreen) mice were subjected to transient middle cerebral artery occlusion and administered varenicline (2.5 mg/kg/d for 7 days) or saline (n = 10 per group) 3 days after stroke. Forelimb asymmetry was assessed in the Cylinder test every 2 days after surgery, and structural lesions were quantified at day 10. Enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) and growth associated protein 43 (GAP43) immunohistochemistry were used to evaluate the effect of varenicline on inflammation and axonal regeneration, respectively.

RESULTS

Varenicline-treated animals showed a significant increase in impaired forelimb use compared with saline-treated animals 10 days after stroke. Varenicline treatment was associated with reduced EGFP expression and increased GAP43 expression in the striatum of MacGreen mice.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that delayed administration of varenicline promotes recovery of function following experimental stroke. Motor function improvements were accompanied by decreased brain inflammation and increased axonal regeneration in nonpenumbral areas. These results suggest that the administration of an exogenous nicotinic agonist in the subacute phase following stroke may be a viable therapeutic strategy for stroke patients.

Modelling a budgetary impact analysis for funding drug-based smoking cessation therapies for patients with major depressive disorder in Spain

BACKGROUND

Smoking is associated with high healthcare resource utilisation and cost to society. Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit high susceptibility to nicotine dependence. Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy are all indicated for smoking cessation; however funding by the Spanish national health system (SNHS) is limited. We modelled a budgetary impact analysis (BIA) to estimate the impact of the SNHS funding drug-based therapies for smoking cessation in smokers with MDD.

METHODS

The BIA compared the current unfunded scenario versus a funded scenario (varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy combined with medical follow-up and counselling) using the Spanish SNHS and societal perspectives. The BIA design was a hybrid model using a decision tree algorithm (population size: smokers with MDD) and Markov chains (smoking cessation attempts) over a 5-year horizon. Smoking cessation drug efficacy was derived from clinical trials, and smoking cessation costs avoided were taken from an analysis of the Spanish National Health Survey. Results were shown as incremental cost savings. Scenarios and threshold univariate sensitivity analyses tested model robustness.

RESULTS

The funded scenario resulted in an increase of 43,478 cessation attempts and 8930 fewer smokers after 5 years compared to the unfunded scenario. The cost of funding was €25.3 million and costs avoided were €26.5 million. There was a cumulative 5-year incremental cost saving of €1.2 million to Spanish society. Results were robust using alternative scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Funding smoking cessation drugs in patients with MDD is of economic benefit to Spain and could produce net savings from the third year of implementation.

The clinical utility of the Medication Adherence Questionnaire (MAQ) in an alcohol pharmacotherapy trial

BACKGROUND

Medication nonadherence is a ubiquitous problem in pharmacology treatment for alcohol use disorders. Unintentional and purposeful nonadherence as measured by the Medication Adherence Questionnaire (MAQ) has been shown to predict problems with medication adherence; however, feedback from the MAQ has never been incorporated into a behavioral intervention to facilitate medication adherence. We assessed the integration of the MAQ into medical management (MM), a counseling approach frequently employed in conjunction with alcohol pharmacotherapy, to determine whether prior patterns of nonadherence could be addressed effectively to promote medication adherence.

METHODS

We conducted a post-hoc analysis of data from 131 alcohol dependent smokers who participated in a double blind, placebo controlled study of varenicline for the treatment of alcohol dependence. At baseline, participants completed a single administration of the MAQ, which asks 2 questions about unintentional nonadherence (e.g., forgetting) and 2 questions about purposeful nonadherence (e.g., stopping because feeling good or feeling bad). Based on these responses, participants were divided into 1 of 3 three categories. Adherent (n=60), Unintentional or Purposeful Nonadherent (n=50) and Unintentional and Purposeful Nonadherent (n=21). Over the course of the 16-week treatment period, patients were expected to participate in 12 medical management (MM) sessions; a brief psychosocial treatment. Feedback based on the MAQ responses was integrated into the MM sessions to facilitate medication and treatment adherence.

RESULTS

The 3 adherence groups were compared on baseline characteristics, medication adherence, treatment attendance and end-of-treatment patient ratings of treatment helpfulness. Baseline demographics and characteristics were not significantly different among the three categories. We found no statistically significant differences among the three groups with respect to pill adherence, treatment attendance, and treatment satisfaction ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the incorporation of MAQ feedback into the MM approach could be effective in mitigating risks associated with prior patterns of nonadherence suggesting that further testing of the integrated behavioral approach is warranted.

Re-treatment with varenicline is a cost-effective aid for smoking cessation

OBJECTIVE

One quit attempt with varenicline has been found to be a cost-effective smoking cessation intervention. The purpose of this study was to analyze varenicline's cost-effectiveness in patients who relapse during or after the first treatment. A comparison was made between re-treatment schema with varenicline and re-treatment schema with bupropion, NRT and unaided cessation, and treatment once with varenicline in a Finnish context.

METHODS

The two-quit version of BENESCO Markov model was used to follow a cohort of smokers making up to two quit attempts over a lifetime. The abstinence rates of the interventions were derived from a Cochrane review. Gender- and age-specific data on the incidence and prevalence of five smoking-related diseases were included in the model. Quality-adjusted life-years, total expected costs, and the lifetime cumulative incidence of smoking-related morbidities and mortality were the primary outcomes evaluated.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 116,533 smokers who were willing to make a quit attempt. In the lifetime simulation, re-treatment with varenicline yielded 6,150-20,250 extra quitters, depending on the comparator. Among these quitters it was possible to prevent 899-2,972 additional cases of smoking-related diseases, and 395-1,307 deaths attributable to smoking. Re-treatment with varenicline resulted in cost savings of up to 54.9 million Euros. Re-treatment with varenicline dominated all the other smoking cessation interventions used in the analysis. Sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of the base case results.

LIMITATIONS

The analysis did not consider adverse events, and included only five major smoking-related diseases, which is a conservative approach, and probably leads to under-estimation of cost-effectiveness of cessation interventions. Furthermore, assumptions of constant relative risks for smoking-related diseases for each smoking status and the proxy values used as efficacy estimates of second quit attempts for other interventions than varenicline are limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

A second quitting effort with varenicline is economically justifiable.

A Combination of Naltrexone + Varenicline Retards the Expression of a Genetic Predisposition Toward High Alcohol Drinking

BACKGROUND

This study examined whether naltrexone (NTX) or varenicline (VAR), alone or in combination, can retard the phenotypic expression of a genetic predisposition toward high alcohol drinking in rats selectively bred for high alcohol intake when drug treatment is initiated prior to, or concomitantly with, the onset of alcohol drinking.

METHODS

Alcohol-naïve P rats were treated daily with NTX (15.0 mg/kg BW), VAR (1.0 mg/kg BW), a combination of NTX (15.0 mg/kg BW) + VAR (1.0 mg/kg BW), or vehicle (VEH) for 2 weeks prior to, or concomitantly with, their first opportunity to drink alcohol and throughout 21 days of daily 2-hour alcohol access. Drug treatment was then discontinued for 3 weeks followed by reinstatement of drug treatment for an additional 3 weeks.

RESULTS

When P rats were pretreated with drug for 2 weeks prior to onset of alcohol access, only NTX + VAR in combination blocked the acquisition of alcohol drinking in alcohol-naïve P rats. When drug treatment was initiated concomitantly with the first opportunity to drink alcohol, NTX alone, VAR alone, and NTX + VAR blocked the acquisition of alcohol drinking. Following termination of drug treatment, NTX + VAR and VAR alone continued to reduce alcohol drinking but by the end of 3 weeks without drug treatment, alcohol intake in all groups was comparable to that seen in the vehicle-treated group as the expression of a genetic predisposition toward high alcohol drinking emerged in the drug-free P rats. After 3 weeks without drug treatment, reinstatement of NTX + VAR treatment again reduced alcohol intake.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of NTX + VAR, when administered prior to, or concomitantly with, the first opportunity to drink alcohol, blocks the acquisition of alcohol drinking during both initial access to alcohol and during a later period of alcohol access in P rats with a genetic predisposition toward high alcohol intake. The results suggest that NTX + VAR may be effective in curtailing alcohol drinking in individuals at high genetic risk of developing alcoholism.

Combining Varenicline (Chantix) with Naltrexone Decreases Alcohol Drinking More Effectively Than Does Either Drug Alone in a Rodent Model of Alcoholism

BACKGROUND

This study examined whether varenicline (VAR), or naltrexone (NTX), alone or in combination, reduces alcohol drinking in alcohol-preferring (P) rats with a genetic predisposition toward high voluntary alcohol intake.

METHODS

Alcohol-experienced P rats that had been drinking alcohol (15% v/v) for 2 h/d for 4 weeks were fed either vehicle (VEH), VAR alone (0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg body weight [BW]), NTX alone (10.0, 15.0, or 20.0 mg/kg BW), or VAR + NTX in 1 of 4 dose combinations (0.5 VAR + 10.0 NTX, 0.5 VAR + 15.0 NTX, 1.0 VAR + 10.0 NTX, or 1.0 VAR + 15.0 NTX) at 1 hour prior to alcohol access for 10 consecutive days, and the effects on alcohol intake were assessed.

RESULTS

When administered alone, VAR in doses of 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg BW did not alter alcohol intake but a dose of 2.0 mg/kg BW decreased alcohol intake. This effect disappeared when drug treatment was terminated. NTX in doses of 10.0 and 15.0 mg/kg BW did not alter alcohol intake but a dose of 20.0 mg/kg BW decreased alcohol intake. Combining low doses of VAR and NTX into a single medication reduced alcohol intake as well as did high doses of each drug alone. Reduced alcohol intake occurred immediately after onset of treatment with the combined medication and continued throughout prolonged treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Low doses of VAR and NTX, when combined in a single medication, reduce alcohol intake in a rodent model of alcoholism. This approach has the advantage of reducing potential side effects associated with each drug. Lowering the dose of NTX and VAR in a combined treatment approach that maintains efficacy while reducing the incidence of negative side effects may increase patient compliance and improve clinical outcomes for alcoholics and heavy drinkers who want to reduce their alcohol intake.

Neuropsychiatric safety and efficacy of varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine patch in smokers with and without psychiatric disorders (EAGLES): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Substantial concerns have been raised about the neuropsychiatric safety of the smoking cessation medications varenicline and bupropion. Their efficacy relative to nicotine patch largely relies on indirect comparisons, and there is limited information on safety and efficacy in smokers with psychiatric disorders. We compared the relative neuropsychiatric safety risk and efficacy of varenicline and bupropion with nicotine patch and placebo in smokers with and without psychiatric disorders.

METHODS

We did a randomised, double-blind, triple-dummy, placebo-controlled and active-controlled (nicotine patch; 21 mg per day with taper) trial of varenicline (1 mg twice a day) and bupropion (150 mg twice a day) for 12 weeks with 12-week non-treatment follow-up done at 140 centres (clinical trial centres, academic centres, and outpatient clinics) in 16 countries between Nov 30, 2011, and Jan 13, 2015. Participants were motivated-to-quit smokers with and without psychiatric disorders who received brief cessation counselling at each visit. Randomisation was computer generated (1:1:1:1 ratio). Participants, investigators, and research personnel were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a composite measure of moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events. The main efficacy endpoint was biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence for weeks 9-12. All participants randomly assigned were included in the efficacy analysis and those who received treatment were included in the safety analysis. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01456936) and is now closed.

FINDINGS

8144 participants were randomly assigned, 4116 to the psychiatric cohort (4074 included in the safety analysis) and 4028 to the non-psychiatric cohort (3984 included in the safety analysis). In the non-psychiatric cohort, 13 (1·3%) of 990 participants reported moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events in the varenicline group, 22 (2·2%) of 989 in the bupropion group, 25 (2·5%) of 1006 in the nicotine patch group, and 24 (2·4%) of 999 in the placebo group. The varenicline-placebo and bupropion-placebo risk differences (RDs) for moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events were -1·28 (95% CI -2·40 to -0·15) and -0·08 (-1·37 to 1·21), respectively; the RDs for comparisons with nicotine patch were -1·07 (-2·21 to 0·08) and 0·13 (-1·19 to 1·45), respectively. In the psychiatric cohort, moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events were reported in 67 (6·5%) of 1026 participants in the varenicline group, 68 (6·7%) of 1017 in the bupropion group, 53 (5·2%) of 1016 in the nicotine patch group, and 50 (4·9%) of 1015 in the placebo group. The varenicline-placebo and bupropion-placebo RDs were 1·59 (95% CI -0·42 to 3·59) and 1·78 (-0·24 to 3·81), respectively; the RDs versus nicotine patch were 1·22 (-0·81 to 3·25) and 1·42 (-0·63 to 3·46), respectively. Varenicline-treated participants achieved higher abstinence rates than those on placebo (odds ratio [OR] 3·61, 95% CI 3·07 to 4·24), nicotine patch (1·68, 1·46 to 1·93), and bupropion (1·75, 1·52 to 2·01). Those on bupropion and nicotine patch achieved higher abstinence rates than those on placebo (OR 2·07 [1·75 to 2·45] and 2·15 [1·82 to 2·54], respectively). Across cohorts, the most frequent adverse events by treatment group were nausea (varenicline, 25% [511 of 2016 participants]), insomnia (bupropion, 12% [245 of 2006 participants]), abnormal dreams (nicotine patch, 12% [251 of 2022 participants]), and headache (placebo, 10% [199 of 2014 participants]). Efficacy treatment comparison did not differ by cohort.

INTERPRETATION

The study did not show a significant increase in neuropsychiatric adverse events attributable to varenicline or bupropion relative to nicotine patch or placebo. Varenicline was more effective than placebo, nicotine patch, and bupropion in helping smokers achieve abstinence, whereas bupropion and nicotine patch were more effective than placebo.

FUNDING

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.

[Smoking cessation for COPD]

Smoking cessation is the most effective intervention to prevent the annual decline in lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All primary healthcare providers should routinely ask all patients whether tobacco use is active or not, and advise tobacco users to stop smoking. In Japan a treatment of nicotine addiction with varenicline or nicotine patch has been started under health insurance coverage since 2006. About half of the patients taking varenicline could stop smoking. Education on the health risks of smoking in schools for younger ages is essential for prevention of COPD.

Utilization and effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for tobacco use following admission for exacerbation of COPD

BACKGROUND

Patients admitted for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly continue to smoke. The utilization and effectiveness of tobacco cessation medications after discharge is largely unknown. We sought to examine whether pharmacologic treatment of tobacco use following admission for COPD was associated with smoking cessation at 6 to 12 months.

METHODS

Multivariable logistic regression analysis of a cohort of 1334 smokers, discharged from hospital with a COPD exacerbation between 2005 and 2012, identified administratively within the Veterans Affairs Veterans Integrated Service Network-20, adjusted for variables chosen a priori. Our primary exposure was treatment with any 1 or combination of smoking cessation medications within 90 days of discharge determined from pharmacy records, with the outcome of smoking cessation at 6 to 12 months after discharge.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Four hundred fifty (33.7%) of the patients were dispensed a smoking cessation medication, with 53.4% receiving a nicotine patch alone. Overall, 19.8% of patients reported quitting smoking at 6 to 12 months. Compared to those not receiving medications, the odds of quitting were not greater among patients dispensed any single or combination of smoking cessation medications within 90 days of discharge (odds ratio [OR]: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.04). Among patients treated with medications compared to nicotine patch alone, varenicline (OR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.48-4.05) was associated with increased odds of cessation, and short-acting nicotine replacement therapy alone (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51-0.85) was associated with decreased odds of cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment was provided to a minority of subjects and was not associated with cessation, with potential differences observed in effectiveness between medications. Systems-based changes may improve delivery of this key intervention.

Effects of Nicotine Patch vs Varenicline vs Combination Nicotine Replacement Therapy on Smoking Cessation at 26 Weeks: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Smoking cessation medications are routinely used in health care; it is vital to identify medications that most effectively treat this leading cause of preventable mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of varenicline, combination nicotine replacement therapy (C-NRT), and the nicotine patch for 26-week quit rates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Three-group randomized intention-to-treat clinical trial occurring from May 2012 to November 2015 among smokers recruited in the Madison, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, communities; 65.5% of smokers offered the study (2687/4102) refused participation prior to randomization.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to one of three 12-week open-label smoking cessation pharmacotherapy groups: (1) nicotine patch only (n = 241); (2) varenicline only (including 1 prequit week; n = 424); and (3) C-NRT (nicotine patch + nicotine lozenge; n = 421). Six counseling sessions were offered.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported initial abstinence, prolonged abstinence at 26 weeks, and point-prevalence abstinence at weeks 4, 12, and 52.

RESULTS

Among 1086 smokers randomized (52% women; 67% white; mean age, 48 years; mean of 17 cigarettes smoked per day), 917 (84%) provided 12-month follow-up data. Treatments did not differ on any abstinence outcome measure at 26 or 52 weeks, including point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks (nicotine patch, 22.8% [55/241]; varenicline, 23.6% [100/424]; and C-NRT, 26.8% [113/421]) or at 52 weeks (nicotine patch, 20.8% [50/241]; varenicline, 19.1% [81/424]; and C-NRT, 20.2% [85/421]). At 26 weeks, the risk differences for abstinence were, for patch vs varenicline, -0.76% (95% CI, -7.4% to 5.9%); for patch vs C-NRT, -4.0% (95% CI, -10.8% to 2.8%); and for varenicline vs C-NRT, -3.3% (95% CI, -9.1% to 2.6%). All medications were well tolerated, but varenicline produced more frequent adverse events than did the nicotine patch for vivid dreams, insomnia, nausea, constipation, sleepiness, and indigestion.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults motivated to quit smoking, 12 weeks of open-label treatment with nicotine patch, varenicline, or C-NRT produced no significant differences in biochemically confirmed rates of smoking abstinence at 26 weeks. The results raise questions about the relative effectiveness of intense smoking pharmacotherapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01553084.

What are the effects of varenicline compared with nicotine replacement therapy on long-term smoking cessation and clinically important outcomes? Protocol for a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is a major avoidable cause of ill-health and premature death. Treatments that help patients successfully quit smoking have an important effect on health and life expectancy. Varenicline is a medication that can help smokers successfully quit smoking. However, there are concerns that it may cause adverse effects, such as increase in the occurrence of depression, self-harm and suicide and cardiovascular disease. In this study we aim to examine the effects of varenicline versus other smoking cessation pharmacotherapies on smoking cessation, health service use, all-cause and cause-specific mortality and physical and mental health conditions.

METHODS

In this project we will investigate the effects of varenicline compared to nicotine replacement therapies on: (1) long-term smoking cessation and whether these effects differ by area level deprivation; and (2) the following clinically-important outcomes: rate of general practice and hospital attendance; all-cause mortality and death due to diseases of the respiratory system and cardiovascular disease; and a primary care diagnosis of respiratory illness, myocardial infarction or depression and anxiety. The study is based on a cohort of patients prescribed these smoking cessation medications from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We will use three methods to overcome confounding: multivariable adjusted Cox regression, propensity score matched Cox regression, and instrumental variable regression. The total expected sample size for analysis will be at least 180,000. Follow-up will end with the earliest of either an 'event' or censoring due to the end of registration or death.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was not required for this study. This project has been approved by the CPRD's Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC). We will disseminate our findings via publications in international peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international conferences.

Combination therapy of varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy is better than varenicline alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a major preventable cause of morbidity and premature death worldwide. Both varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) help achieve smoking cessation. However, limited evidence exists regarding whether combination of varenicline and NRT is more effective than either alone. The aim of this research was to investigate the efficacy and safety of varenicline combined with NRT.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov, and Cochrane Library was conducted in November 2014. Two authors independently reviewed and selected randomized controlled trials. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the Jadad score. We carried out meta-analysis of both early (abstinence rate assessed before or at the end of treatment) and late (assessed after the end of the treatment) outcomes.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials with 904 participants were included in this meta-analysis. All three were comparing combination therapy with varenicline therapy alone. The late outcomes were assessed in 2 of the 3 trials. Both the early and late outcomes were favorable for combination therapy (OR = 1.50, 95 % CI 1.14 to 1.97; OR = 1.62, 95 % CI 1.18 to 2.23, respectively). However, this significance diminished after eliminating a study with pre-cessation treatment using nicotine patch. The most common adverse events were nausea, insomnia, abnormal dreams, and headache. One study reported more skin reactions (14.4 % vs 7.8 %; p = 0.03) associated with combination therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy is more effective than varenicline alone, especially if pre-cessation treatment of nicotine patch is administrated. Adverse events of combination therapy are similar to mono-therapy except for skin reactions.