-
L'Encephale Dec 2022Drug-induced hypersalivation is a frequent drug adverse event of psychotropic drugs. This excess salivary pooling in the mouth can cause an impairment of a patient's...
OBJECTIVES
Drug-induced hypersalivation is a frequent drug adverse event of psychotropic drugs. This excess salivary pooling in the mouth can cause an impairment of a patient's quality of life leading to low rates of medication adherence. The optimal management of hypersalivation is thus crucial to improve patient care. To date, no recommendations for limiting drug-induced hypersalivation have been published. In this study, we conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing drug-induced hypersalivation.
METHODS
Treatment of drug-induced sialorrhea based on case reports and clinical studies were sought in May 2021 from PubMed, Google Scholar and Science Direct (keywords : « treatment », « hypersalivation », « induced », « drug », « clozapine »). Articles published between 1966 to May 2021 on the treatment of drug-induced hypersalivation were included in this study.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven articles were selected in this narrative review. First, patient education associated with non-drug related management are essential to improve the compliance to drugs inducing hypersalivation. The non-drug related management should be initiated with an increase in the frequency of swallowing with chewing gum. In the case of ineffectiveness, the dosage of drug responsive of sialorrhea can be adjusted according to the patient's response and his/her medical history (i.e. reducing the dose or splitting the daily dose). Finally, if the problem persists, a symptomatic treatment can be added according to the type of sialorrhea (diurnal or nocturnal), preferred galenic by patient, tolerance and availability of drugs. Several drugs have been tested to reduce hypersalivation induced by clozapine (61/67), risperidone (3/67), quetiapine (2/67) and aripiprazole (2/67). Among the 63 articles targeting a specific corrective treatment, anticholinergic agents were most described in the literature (41 cases out of 63) with atropine, glycopyrrolate and scopolamine (6/41 each). Other agents were described as clinically effective on hypersalivation: dopamine antagonists (9/63) with amisulpride (5/9), alpha-2-adrenergic agonists (5/63) with clonidine (3/5), botulinic toxin (4/63), and terazosine, moclobemide, bupropion and N-acetylcysteine (for each 1/63).
CONCLUSIONS
In the case of drug-induced hypersalivation, after failure of non-drug therapies and dosage optimization of the causative treatment, an anticholinergic drug can be initiated. In case of insufficient response, the different treatments presented can be used depending on the galenic form, tolerance and access to those medications. The assessment of the risk-benefit balance should be systematic. The heterogeneity of the studies, the little knowledge about the pharmacological mechanism of saliva flow modulation and the unavailability of corrective drugs are different factors contributing to the complexity of therapeutic optimization.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Sialorrhea; Clozapine; Quality of Life; Amisulpride; Scopolamine; Cholinergic Antagonists; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 35989107
DOI: 10.1016/j.encep.2022.03.013 -
Medicine Apr 2024Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Dementia severity was assessed mainly through cognitive function, psychobehavioral symptoms, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Dementia severity was assessed mainly through cognitive function, psychobehavioral symptoms, and daily living ability. Currently, there are not many drugs that can be selected to treat mild to moderate AD, and the value of drugs remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), memantine, and sodium oligomannate (GV-971) in the treatment of patients with AD. Additionally, molecular docking analysis will be used to investigate the binding affinities of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine with key receptor proteins associated with AD, including beta-amyloid (Abeta), microtubule-associated protein (MAP), apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4), and Mitofusin-2 (MFN2), to further validate the results of the meta-analysis.
METHODS
We obtained clinical trials characterized by randomization, placebo control, and double-blinded methodologies concerning ChEIs, memantine, and GV-971. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.4 software. Molecular docking was also conducted to evaluate the results.
RESULTS
All drugs improved the cognitive function, with the effect value ranging from -1.23 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.30) for 20 mg memantine to -3.29 (95% CI -4.14 to -2.45) for 32 mg galantamine. Although 32 mg galanthamine and GV-971 did not improve the clinicians' Global Impression of Change scale, other drugs showed significant results compared with placebo. On NPI, only 10 mg of donepezil and 24 mg of galantamine had improvement effects. On ADCS/ADL, only 20 mg memantine and 900 mg GV-971 had no significant difference from the placebo. Donepezil 5 mg and GV-971 900 mg did not increase the drug withdrawal rates due to various reasons or adverse reactions when compared to the placebo. Donepezil demonstrated superior binding to the protein and exhibited greater efficacy compared to other drugs.
CONCLUSION
ChEIs, memantine, and GV-971 all can slow the progression of AD but have different effects on respective assessments. Donepezil and GV-971 were relatively well tolerated.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Donepezil; Galantamine; Memantine; Molecular Docking Simulation; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 38640313
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037799 -
The Journal of Urology Nov 2023Ureteral stents are commonly used for the treatment of ureteral obstruction, most often urolithiasis. Their use may be associated with significant bothersome symptoms... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Ureteral stents are commonly used for the treatment of ureteral obstruction, most often urolithiasis. Their use may be associated with significant bothersome symptoms and discomfort. Prior studies have examined the effects of various medication regimens on ureteral stent symptoms. This study utilized Bayesian network meta-analysis to analyze all available evidence on the pharmacological management of ureteral stent-related symptoms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In December 2022 a systematic review was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines on randomized prospective studies on pharmacological management of ureteral stent-related symptoms reporting outcomes using the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire score on urinary symptoms and pain. The data were analyzed in Review Manager 5.3 and R Studio where a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. Treatments were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve and mean difference vs placebo with 95% credible intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 26 studies were analyzed. These were used to build networks which were modeled to run 100,000 Markov Chain Montecarlo simulations each. Drug-class analysis revealed the most effective class for each domain: for urinary symptoms, sexual performance, general health, and work performance-combined α-blocker and anticholinergic and phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors; for pain-combined anticholinergic and pregabalin. The following were the most effective drugs and dosages for specific symptoms: for urinary symptoms-combined silodosin 8 mg+solifenacin 10 mg; for pain-combined silodosin 8 mg+solifenacin 10 mg; for sexual performance-tadalafil 5 mg. Combined silodosin 8 mg+solifenacin 10 mg+tadalafil 5 mg has the best general health scores while solifenacin 10 mg had the best work experience scores.
CONCLUSIONS
This network meta-analysis demonstrated that the most effective drug therapy is different for each symptom domain. It is important to consider a patient's chief complaint and domains in order to ascertain the optimal medication regimen for each patient. Further iterations of this analysis can be strengthened by trials that directly compare more of these drugs instead of relying on indirect evidence.
Topics: Humans; Solifenacin Succinate; Tadalafil; Network Meta-Analysis; Prospective Studies; Bayes Theorem; Quality of Life; Ureter; Pain; Cholinergic Antagonists; Stents
PubMed: 37428119
DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003616 -
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2023Perfusion imaging has the potential to identify neurodegenerative disorders in a preclinical stage. However, to correctly interpret perfusion-derived parameters, the...
BACKGROUND
Perfusion imaging has the potential to identify neurodegenerative disorders in a preclinical stage. However, to correctly interpret perfusion-derived parameters, the impact of perfusion modifiers should be evaluated.
OBJECTIVE
In this systematic review, the impact of acute and chronic intake of four acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) on cerebral perfusion in adults was investigated: physostigmine, donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine.
RESULTS
Chronic AChEI treatment results in an increase of cerebral perfusion in treatment-responsive patients with Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and Parkinson's disease dementia in the frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes, as well as the cingulate gyrus. These effects appear to be temporary, dose-related, and consistent across populations and different AChEI types. On the contrary, further perfusion decline was reported in patients not receiving AChEIs or not responding to the treatment.
CONCLUSION
AChEIs appear to be a potential perfusion modifier in neurodegenerative patients. More research focused on quantitative perfusion in both patients with and without a cholinergic deficit is needed to draw conclusions on whether AChEI intake should be considered when analyzing perfusion data.
Topics: Humans; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Acetylcholinesterase; Dementia; Piperidines; Indans; Phenylcarbamates; Parkinson Disease; Rivastigmine; Alzheimer Disease; Galantamine; Cognition; Perfusion; Cerebrovascular Circulation
PubMed: 37182871
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-221125 -
CNS Drugs Nov 2022For decades, treatment of mood disorders, psychoses, anxiety and dementia have been confounded by limited efficacy and high rates of treatment resistance. Preclinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
For decades, treatment of mood disorders, psychoses, anxiety and dementia have been confounded by limited efficacy and high rates of treatment resistance. Preclinical and clinical evidence have highlighted disruption of cholinergic signalling in several neuropsychiatric conditions and examined intervention strategies including acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and nicotinic receptor-targeted intervention. However, the effectiveness of these approaches is often curtailed by on-target side effects. Post mortem studies implicate muscarinic receptor dysregulation in neuropsychiatric pathophysiology; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of muscarinic receptor-targeted interventions in adults with neuropsychiatric disorders.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EBSCO and Web of Science were searched using relevant keywords from database inception to 7 August 2022. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were included if they investigated the effect of muscarinic receptor-targeted intervention in adults with a diagnosis of a neuropsychiatric disorder and were published in English. A narrative synthesis approach was adopted to describe the findings. Wherever three or more studies with a similar intervention were available, effect sizes were calculated, and a meta-analysis was performed. Cochrane risk-of-bias-2 tool was utilised to assess the risk of bias, and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify publication bias. Certainty analysis (high, moderate, low and/or very low) was conducted using GRADE criteria.
RESULTS
Overall, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria and 5 were included in the meta-analysis. Despite a limited pool with several different interventions, we found therapeutic efficacy of xanomeline (M/M agonist) in primary psychotic disorders plus behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Scopolamine showed a significant antidepressant effect in a combined cohort of major depressive and bipolar disorders in the short-term outcome measure, but no effect following cessation of treatment. Results from bias assessments suggest "very low" certainty in the antidepressant effect of scopolamine. Critical limitations of the current literature included low power, high heterogeneity in the patient population and a lack of active comparators.
CONCLUSION
While the results are not definitive, findings on muscarinic receptor-targeted interventions in several mental disorders are promising in terms of efficacy and safety, specifically in treating schizophrenia, mood disorders, and behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. However, orthosteric muscarinic receptor-targeted interventions are associated with a range of peripheral adverse effects that are thought to be mediated via M/M receptors. The orthosteric binding site of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors is remarkably conserved, posing a challenge for subtype-selective interventions; nonetheless allosteric ligands with biased signalling pathways are now in development. We conclude that adequately powered prospective studies with subtype-selective interventions are required to determine the clinical effectiveness of muscarinic-receptor targeted interventions for the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Prospective Studies; Acetylcholinesterase; Treatment Outcome; Antidepressive Agents; Receptors, Muscarinic; Scopolamine Derivatives; Dementia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36269510
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-022-00964-8 -
East Asian Archives of Psychiatry :... Jun 2023Clozapine is a potent antipsychotic medication with a complex receptor profile. It is reserved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We systematically reviewed studies...
OBJECTIVE
Clozapine is a potent antipsychotic medication with a complex receptor profile. It is reserved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We systematically reviewed studies of non-psychosis symptoms of clozapine withdrawal.
METHODS
CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched using the keywords 'clozapine,' and 'withdrawal,' or 'supersensitivity,' 'cessation,' 'rebound,' or 'discontinuation'. Studies related to non-psychosis symptoms after clozapine withdrawal were included.
RESULTS
Five original studies and 63 case reports / series were included in analysis. In 195 patients included in the five original studies, approximately 20% experienced non-psychosis symptoms following discontinuation of clozapine. In 89 patients in four of the studies, 27 experienced cholinergic rebound, 13 exhibited extrapyramidal symptoms (including tardive dyskinesia), and three had catatonia. In 63 case reports / series included, 72 patients with non-psychosis symptoms were reported, which were catatonia (n=30), dystonia or dyskinesia (n=17), cholinergic rebound (n=11), serotonin syndrome (n=4), mania (n=3), insomnia (n=3), neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) [n=3, one of them had both catatonia and NMS], and de novo obsessive compulsive symptoms (n=2). Restarting clozapine appeared to be the most effective treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-psychosis symptoms following clozapine withdrawal have important clinical implications. Clinicians should be aware of the possible presentations of symptoms to ensure early recognition and management. Further research is warranted to better characterise the prevalence, risk factors, prognosis, and optimal drug dosing for each withdrawal symptom.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Catatonia; Cholinergic Agents; Clozapine; Schizophrenia; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 37400227
DOI: 10.12809/eaap2261 -
Archivio Italiano Di Urologia,... Oct 2023Urinary incontinence and other urinary symptoms tend to be frequent at menopause because of hormonal modifications and aging. Urinary symptoms are associated with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Urinary incontinence and other urinary symptoms tend to be frequent at menopause because of hormonal modifications and aging. Urinary symptoms are associated with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause which is characterized by physical changes of the vulva, vagina and lower urinary tract. The treatment strategies for postmenopausal urinary incontinence are various and may include estrogens, anticholinergics, and pelvic floor muscle training. A comparison of these treatments is difficult due to the heterogeneity of adopted protocols. We systematically reviewed the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on treatment of postmenopausal women with urge incontinence.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting results of treatments for postmenopausal urinary urge incontinence. Odds ratios for improvement of urinary incontinence were calculated using random effect Mantel-Haenszel statistics.
RESULTS
Out of 248 records retrieved, 35 eligible RCTs were assessed for risk of bias and included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, systemic estrogens were associated with decreased odds of improving urinary incontinence in postmenopausal women (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61-0.91, 7 series, 17132 participants, Z = 2.89, P = 0.004, I2 = 72%). In most studies, no significant improvement in urinary symptoms was observed in patients treated with local estrogens, although they showed to be helpful in improving vaginal symptoms. Vitamin D, phytoestrogens and estrogen modulators were not effective in improving symptoms of incontinence and other symptoms of genitourinary menopause syndrome or yielded contradictory results. A randomized controlled trial demonstrated that oxybutynin was significantly better than placebo at improving postmenopausal urgency and urge incontinence. The combination of anticholinergics with local estrogens has not been shown to be more effective than anticholinergics alone in improving urinary incontinence symptoms in postmenopausal women. Physical therapy showed an overall positive outcome on postmenopausal urinary incontinence symptoms, although such evidence should be further validated in the frame of quality RCTs.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for effective treatment of postmenopausal urinary incontinence is still lacking. Welldesigned large studies having subjective and objective improvement primary endpoints in postmenopausal urinary incontinence are needed. At present, a combination of different treatments tailored to the characteristics of the individual patient can be suggested.
Topics: Female; Humans; Urinary Incontinence, Urge; Urinary Incontinence, Stress; Postmenopause; Pelvic Floor; Urinary Incontinence; Estrogens; Cholinergic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37791545
DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2023.11718 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Tardive dyskinesia (TD) remains a troublesome adverse effect of conventional antipsychotic (neuroleptic) medication. It has been proposed that TD could have a component... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tardive dyskinesia (TD) remains a troublesome adverse effect of conventional antipsychotic (neuroleptic) medication. It has been proposed that TD could have a component of central cholinergic deficiency. Cholinergic drugs have been used to treat TD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of cholinergic drugs (arecoline, choline, deanol, lecithin, meclofenoxate, physostigmine, RS 86, tacrine, metoxytacrine, galantamine, ipidacrine, donepezil, rivastigmine, eptastigmine, metrifonate, xanomeline, cevimeline) for treating antipsychotic-induced TD in people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illness.
SEARCH METHODS
An electronic search of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (16 July 2015 and April 2017) was undertaken. This register is assembled by extensive searches for randomised controlled trials in many electronic databases, registers of trials, conference proceedings and dissertations. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included reports identified by the search if they were of controlled trials involving people with antipsychotic-induced TD and chronic mental illness, who had been randomly allocated to either a cholinergic agent or to a placebo or no intervention. Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data and, where possible, estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis, with the assumption that people who left early had no improvement. We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies investigating the use of cholinergic drugs compared with placebo published between 1976 and 2014. All studies involved small numbers of participants (five to 60 people). Three studies that investigated the new cholinergic Alzheimer drugs for the treatment of TD are new to this update. Overall, the risk of bias in the included studies was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting; allocation concealment was not described, generation of the sequence was not explicit, studies were not clearly blinded, we are unsure if data are incomplete, and data were often poorly or selectively reported.We are uncertain about the effect of new or old cholinergic drugs on no clinically important improvement in TD symptoms when compared with placebo; the quality of evidence was very low (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.23; 27 people, 4 RCTs). Eight trials found that cholinergic drugs may make little or no difference to deterioration of TD symptoms (low-quality evidence, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.24; 147 people). Again, due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects on mental state (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.61; 77 people, 5 RCTs), adverse events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.14; 106 people, 4 RCTs), and leaving the study early (RR 1.09,95% CI 0.56 to 2.10; 288 people 12 RCTs). No study reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
TD remains a major public health problem. The clinical effects of both older cholinergic drugs and new cholinergic agents, now used for treating Alzheimer's disease, are unclear, as too few, too small studies leave many questions unanswered. Cholinergic drugs should remain of interest to researchers and currently have little place in routine clinical work. However, with the advent of new cholinergic agents now used for treating Alzheimer's disease, scope exists for more informative trials. If these new cholinergic agents are to be investigated for treating people with TD, their effects should be demonstrated in large well-designed, conducted and reported randomised trials.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cholinergic Agents; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; Humans; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29553158
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000207.pub2 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2023To conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review on the association between anticholinergic medication uses and the risk of pneumonia in elderly adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review on the association between anticholinergic medication uses and the risk of pneumonia in elderly adults.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Medical databases were searched included PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO and Google Scholar (up to December 7, 2022). Studies evaluating association between anticholinergic medication uses and the risk of pneumonia in elderly adults were included. Studies without available data were excluded. We made meta-analysis by using adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from random-effects model. The risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I tool and statistical heterogeneity using the statistic. Registration: INPLASY202330070.
RESULTS
A total of six studies with 107,012 participants were included. Meta-analysis results showed that anticholinergic medication uses was related with an increased risk of pneumonia (aOR = 1.59; 95%CI, 1.32-1.92) and stroke-associated pneumonia (aOR = 2.02; 95%CI, 1.76-2.33). Moreover, risk estimates of pneumonia for high-potency anticholinergics (aOR = 1.96; 95%CI, 1.22-3.14) were higher than those for low-potency anticholinergics (aOR = 1.58; 95%CI, 1.27-1.97). And increased risk of pneumonia was associated with the anticholinergic medication uses within 30 days (aOR = 2.13; 95%CI, 1.33-3.43), within 90 days (aOR = 2.03; 95%CI, 1.26-3.26) and chronic use (aOR = 1.65; 95%CI, 1.09-2.51).
CONCLUSIONS
The risk of pneumonia is increased in elderly adults with anticholinergic medication, especially with higher-potency anticholinergic drugs and in the initiation phase of anticholinergic medication. Clinicians should monitor their use in older patients carefully, especially when the pneumonia-related signs and symptoms are identified.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Humans; Bias; Cholinergic Antagonists; Pneumonia
PubMed: 37190776
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2209736 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Smoking Cessation; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 34519354
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub6