-
Nicotine & Tobacco Research : Official... Jul 2019Smoking in pregnancy is a substantial public health issue, but, apart from nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), pharmacological therapies are not generally used to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Smoking in pregnancy is a substantial public health issue, but, apart from nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), pharmacological therapies are not generally used to promote cessation. Bupropion and varenicline are effective cessation methods in nonpregnant smokers and this systematic review investigates their safety in pregnancy.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO databases for studies of any design reporting pregnancy outcomes after bupropion or varenicline exposure. We included studies of bupropion used for smoking cessation, depression, or where the indication was unspecified. Depending on study design, quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Most findings are reported narratively but meta-analyses were used to produce pooled estimates for the proportion of live births with congenital malformations and of the mean birthweight and gestational age at delivery following bupropion exposure.
RESULTS
In total, 18 studies were included: 2 randomized controlled trials, 11 cohorts, 2 case- control studies, and 3 case reports. Study quality was variable. Gestational safety outcomes were reported in 14 bupropion and 4 varenicline studies. Meaningful meta-analysis was only possible for bupropion exposure, for which the pooled estimated proportion of congenital malformations amongst live-born infants was 1.0% (95% CI = 0.0%-3.0%, I2 = 80.9%, 4 studies) and the mean birthweight and mean gestational age at delivery was 3305.9 g (95% CI = 3173.2-3438.7 g, I2 = 77.6%, 5 studies) and 39.2 weeks (95% CI = 38.8-39.6 weeks, I2 = 69.9%, 5 studies), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no strong evidence that either major positive or negative outcomes were associated with gestational use of bupropion or varenicline. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017067064.
IMPLICATIONS
We believe this to be the first systematic review investigating the safety of bupropion and varenicline in pregnancy. Meta-analysis of outcomes following bupropion exposure in pregnancy suggests that there are no major positive or negative impacts on the rate of congenital abnormalities, birthweight, or premature birth. Overall, we found no evidence that either of these treatments might be harmful in pregnancy, and no strong evidence to suggest safety, but available evidence is of poor quality.
Topics: Bupropion; Case-Control Studies; Female; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Cessation Agents; Varenicline
PubMed: 29579233
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/nty055 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Sep 2014The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for profit organization which produces and disseminates systematic reviews. This paper is the second in a series of... (Review)
Review
AIMS
The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for profit organization which produces and disseminates systematic reviews. This paper is the second in a series of annual updates of Cochrane reviews on tobacco addiction interventions, covering new and updated reviews from 2013.
METHODS
In 2013, the Group published two new reviews and updated 11 others. This update summarizes and comments on these reviews as well as on a review of psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in pregnant women, and presents pooled results from reviews of cessation interventions.
RESULTS
New reviews in 2013 found: low-quality evidence that behavioural interventions with mood management components could significantly increase long-term quit rates in people with current [risk ratio (RR) = 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.13-1.92) and past (RR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.13-1.77] depression; evidence from network meta-analysis that varenicline and combined forms of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) are associated with higher quit rates than bupropion or single-form NRT (varenicline versus single-form NRT odds ratio (OR) = 1.57, 95% credibility interval (CredI) = 1.29-1.91; versus bupropion OR = 1.59, 95% CredI = 1.29-1.96); and no evidence of a significant increase in serious adverse events in trial participants randomized to varenicline or bupropion when compared to placebo controls. New evidence emerging from updated reviews suggests that counselling interventions can increase quit rates in pregnant women and that school-based smoking programmes with social competence curricula can lead to a significant reduction in uptake of smoking at more than a year. Updated reviews also suggested that naltrexone, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors and St John's wort do not have a significant effect on long-term smoking cessation.
CONCLUSIONS
Cochrane systematic review evidence from 2013 suggests that adding mood management to behavioural support may improve cessation outcomes in smokers with current or past depression and strengthens evidence for previous conclusions, including the safety of varenicline and bupropion and the benefits of behavioural support for smoking cessation in pregnancy.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Behavior Therapy; Benzazepines; Bupropion; Counseling; Female; Humans; Male; Nicotinic Agonists; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Quinoxalines; School Health Services; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Tobacco Use Disorder; Treatment Outcome; Varenicline
PubMed: 24995905
DOI: 10.1111/add.12633 -
BMC Ophthalmology Jul 2023Dry eye disease (DED) is caused by a persistently unstable tear film leading to ocular discomfort and is treated mainly with tear supplementation. There is emerging... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dry eye disease (DED) is caused by a persistently unstable tear film leading to ocular discomfort and is treated mainly with tear supplementation. There is emerging evidence that nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) agonists (e.g., varenicline and simpinicline) nasal sprays are effective for DED. Our systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of varenicline nasal spray (VNS) for DED treatment.
METHODS
The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of VNS versus placebo were included. The efficacy endpoint was the mean change in the anesthetized Schirmer test score (STS), a measure of basal tear production, from baseline. The safety endpoints were serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events (AEs). The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used for continuous outcomes, while the risk ratio (RR) was used to demonstrate dichotomous variables. The certainty of the evidence was rated utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS
Three RCTs (n = 1063) met the eligibility criteria. All RCTs had a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis found a statistically significant increase in the mean STS change from baseline on day 28. The pooled analysis found no significant difference between VNS and placebo in the frequency of SAEs and ocular AEs. However, VNS had a significant effect on developing nasal cavity-related AEs.
CONCLUSION
VNS caused a highly significant improvement regarding the efficacy endpoint but caused an increased frequency of some nasal cavity-related AEs (i.e., cough and throat irritation). However, it caused neither SAEs nor ocular AEs. Included studies had a low risk of bias.
Topics: Humans; Nasal Sprays; Varenicline; Dry Eye Syndromes
PubMed: 37452334
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-023-03069-y -
Journal of Evidence-based Medicine Dec 2023To investigate the most effective and best-tolerated drugs for treating diseased smokers. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the most effective and best-tolerated drugs for treating diseased smokers.
METHODS
Eight databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving different pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in disease patients (January 2023). Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 15.1 software. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool assessed the risk of bias, and confidence in evidence was assessed using CINeMA.
RESULTS
A total of 60 RCTs involving 13,009 patients of 12 disease categories were included. All trials reported 13 interventions, resulting in 78 comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline (OR = 2.30, 95% CI (1.77, 3.00)) and bupropion (OR = 1.65, 95% CI (1.29, 2.11)) showed favorable abstinence effects compared to placebo in the cardiovascular disease population. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) had better withdrawal advantages than placebo (OR = 11.18, 95% CI (2.25, 55.54)) in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population. Some combination treatments showed better results than monotherapy, such as bupropion + NRT was superior to bupropion (OR = 8.45, 95% CI (1.84, 38.89)) and NRT (OR = 4.98, 95% CI (1.25, 19.78)) in mental illness population. The final surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that bupropion + NRT achieved the best smoking cessation effect. Overall confidence in the evidence was low. In a comparison of drugs, the results showed that bupropion + NRT had the best safety.
CONCLUSIONS
Most interventions show the benefit of quitting smoking compared with placebo, including monotherapy and combination therapy. Moreover, varenicline or bupropion combined with NRT is superior to some monotherapies.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Bupropion; Varenicline; Nicotinic Agonists; Smokers; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38102895
DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12570 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to tobacco dependence and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to tobacco dependence and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of ST use.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register in June 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit with follow-up of at least six months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We summarised outcomes as risk ratios (RRs). For subgroups of trials with similar types of intervention and without substantial statistical heterogeneity, we estimated pooled effects using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 34 trials that met the inclusion criteria, of which nine were new for this update, representing over 16,000 participants. There was moderate quality evidence from two studies suggesting that varenicline increases ST abstinence rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.68, 507 participants). Pooled results from two trials of bupropion did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44, 293 participants) but the confidence interval was wide. Neither nicotine patch (five trials, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.37, 1083 participants) nor nicotine gum (two trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43, 310 participants) increased abstinence. Pooling five studies of nicotine lozenges did increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 1529 participants) but confidence in this estimate is low as the result is sensitive to the exclusion of three trials which did not use a placebo control.Statistical heterogeneity was evident among the 17 trials of behavioural interventions: eight of them reported statistically and clinically significant benefits; six suggested benefit but with wide CIs and no statistical significance; and three had similar intervention and control quit rates and relatively narrow CIs. Heterogeneity was not explained by study design (individual or cluster randomization), whether participants were selected for interest in quitting, or specific intervention components. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, trials of behavioural interventions incorporating telephone support, with or without oral examination and feedback, were associated with larger effect sizes, but oral examination and feedback alone were not associated with benefit.In one trial an interactive website increased abstinence more than a static website. One trial comparing immediate cessation using nicotine patch versus a reduction approach using either nicotine lozenge or brand switching showed greater success for the abrupt cessation group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Varenicline, nicotine lozenges and behavioural interventions may help ST users to quit. Confidence in results for nicotine lozenges is limited. Confidence in the size of effect from behavioural interventions is limited because the components of behavioural interventions that contribute to their impact are not clear.
Topics: Benzazepines; Bupropion; Chewing Gum; Counseling; Humans; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Quinoxalines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tobacco Use Cessation; Tobacco, Smokeless; Varenicline
PubMed: 26501380
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004306.pub5 -
BMJ Open Jan 2016To establish which non-psychotropic medications have been assessed in relation to risk of suicide or attempted suicide in observational studies, document reported... (Review)
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.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anticonvulsants; Cardiovascular Agents; Humans; Isotretinoin; Leukotriene Antagonists; Observational Studies as Topic; Prescription Drugs; Risk; Risk Factors; Suicide; Suicide, Attempted; Varenicline
PubMed: 26769782
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009074 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2023Although varenicline has been used for alcohol dependence (AD) treatment, its efficacy for this condition remains controversial. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although varenicline has been used for alcohol dependence (AD) treatment, its efficacy for this condition remains controversial.
AIMS
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assesses the efficacy and safety of varenicline in patients with AD.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and ThaiLis were systematically searched. RCTs investigating the efficacy and safety of varenicline in patients with AD were included. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were independently performed by two authors. The Jadad score and Cochrane risk of bias were used to assess the quality of the included studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using I and chi-squared tests.
RESULTS
Twenty-two high-quality RCTs on 1421 participants were included. Varenicline significantly reduced alcohol-related outcomes compared with placebo based on percentage of abstinent days (standardized mean difference [SMD] 4.20 days; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21, 8.19; = 0.04), drinks per day (SMD -0.23 drinks; 95% CI: -0.43, -0.04; = 0.02), drinks per drinking day (SMD -0.24 drinks; 95% CI: -0.44, -0.05; = 0.01), craving assessed using the Penn alcohol craving scale (SMD -0.35; 95% CI: -0.59, -0.12; = 0.003), and craving assessed using the alcohol urge questionnaire (SMD -1.41; 95% CI: -2.12, -0.71; < 0.0001). However, there were no significant effects on abstinence rate, percentage of drinking days, percentage of heavy drinking days, alcohol intoxication, or drug compliance. Serious side effects were not observed in the varenicline or placebo groups.
CONCLUSION
Our results indicated that AD patients treated with varenicline showed improvement in percentage of very heavy drinking days, percentage of abstinent days, drinks per day, drinks per drinking day, and craving. However, well-designed RCTs with a large sample size and long duration on varenicline treatment in AD remain warranted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Humans; Alcoholic Intoxication; Alcoholism; Craving; Ethanol; Varenicline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36901103
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20054091 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016Smoking cessation is the most important treatment for smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but little is known about the effectiveness of different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Smoking cessation is the most important treatment for smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but little is known about the effectiveness of different smoking cessation interventions for this particular group of smokers.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural or pharmacological smoking cessation interventions, or both, in smokers with COPD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched all records in the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials. In addition to this electronic search, we searched clinical trial registries for planned, ongoing, and unpublished trials. We searched all databases from their inception. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and of other systematic reviews in relevant topic areas. We searched for errata or retractions from eligible trials on PubMed. We conducted our most recent search in March 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of any behavioural or pharmacological treatment, or both, in smokers with COPD reporting at least six months of follow-up abstinence rates.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data and performed the methodological quality assessment for each study. We resolved any disagreements by consensus.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies (involving 13,123 participants) in this systematic review, two of which were of high quality. These two studies showed that nicotine sublingual tablet and varenicline increased the quit rate over placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 5.24) and RR 3.34 (95% CI 1.88 to 5.92)). Pooled results of two studies also showed a positive effect of bupropion compared with placebo (RR 2.03 (95% CI 1.26 to 3.28)). When pooling these four studies, we found high-quality evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy plus high-intensity behavioural treatment compared with placebo plus high-intensity behavioural treatment (RR 2.53 (95% CI 1.83 to 3.50)). Furthermore, we found some evidence that high-intensity behavioural treatment increased abstinence rates when compared with usual care (RR 25.38 (95% CI 8.03 to 80.22)) or low-intensity behavioural treatment (RR 2.18 (95% CI 1.05 to 4.49)). Finally, the results showed effectiveness of various combinations of psychosocial and pharmacological interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-quality evidence in a meta-analysis including four (1,540 participants) of the 16 included studies that a combination of behavioural treatment and pharmacotherapy is effective in helping smokers with COPD to quit smoking. Furthermore, we conclude that there is no convincing evidence for preferring any particular form of behavioural or pharmacological treatment.
Topics: Adult; Behavior Therapy; Bupropion; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 27545342
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010744.pub2 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022The detrimental impact of smoking on health and wellbeing are irrefutable. Additionally, smoking is associated with the development of cancer, a reduction treatment... (Review)
Review
The detrimental impact of smoking on health and wellbeing are irrefutable. Additionally, smoking is associated with the development of cancer, a reduction treatment outcomes and poorer health outcomes. Nevertheless, a significant number of people continue to smoke following a cancer diagnosis. Little is understood of the smoking cessation services provided to smokers with cancer or their engagement with them. This systematic review aimed to identify existing smoking cessation interventions for this cohort diagnosed with breast, head and neck, lung and cervical cancers (linked to risk). Systematic searches of Pubmed, Embase, Psych Info and CINAHL from 1 January 2015 to 15 December 2020 were conducted. Included studies examined the characteristics of smoking cessation interventions and impact on referrals and quit attempts. The impact on healthcare professionals was included if reported. Included studies were restricted to adults with a cancer diagnosis and published in English. No restriction was placed on study designs, and narrative data synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity. A review protocol was registered on PROSPERO CRD 42020214204, and reporting adheres to PRISMA reporting guidelines. Data were screened, extracted in duplicate and an assessment of the quality of evidence undertaken using Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. 23 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing USA, Canada, England, Lebanon, Australia and including randomized controlled trials (9), observational studies (10), quality improvement (3), and one qualitative study. Hospital and cancer clinics [including a dental clinic] were the settings for all studies. 43% (10/23) of studies reported interventions for smokers diagnosed with head and neck cancer, 13% (3/23) for smokers diagnosed with lung cancer, one study provides evidence for breast cancer, and the remaining nine studies (39%) report on multiple cancers including the ones specified in this review. Methodological quality was variable. There were limited data to identify one optimal intervention for this cohort. Key elements included the timing and frequency of quit conversations, use of electronic records, pharmacotherapy including extended use of varenicline, increased counselling sessions and a service embedded in oncology departments. More studies are required to ensure tailored smoking cessation pathways are co-developed for smokers with a diagnosis of cancer to support this population.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Smoking Cessation; Smokers; Inventions; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Delivery of Health Care
PubMed: 36554894
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192417010