-
Revue Des Maladies Respiratoires Jan 2021The prevalence of smoking in asthmatic patients is similar to, or even higher than in the general population. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The prevalence of smoking in asthmatic patients is similar to, or even higher than in the general population.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review addresses (1) the effects of smoking on asthma, (2) smoking cessation strategies in asthmatic patients, and (3) the consequences of smoking cessation for people with asthma.
RESULTS
Active or passive smoking can promote the development of asthma. The few studies on smoking cessation in asthma confirm the efficacy of validated smoking cessation strategies in these patients (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, bupropion, cognitive and behavioural therapies). Smoking cessation in parents with asthmatic children is essential and is based on the same strategies. Electronic cigarettes may be a useful help to quit smoking in some patients. Smoking cessation is beneficial in asthmatic smokers and associated with (1) a reduction of asthma symptoms, acute exacerbations, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and bronchial inflammation, (2) decreased use of rescue medications and in doses of inhaled corticosteroids, (3) improved asthma control, quality of life, and lung function.
CONCLUSION
In asthmatic patients, it is essential to assess smoking status and health professionals must assist them to quit smoking.
Topics: Asthma; Child; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Nicotine; Quality of Life; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 33414027
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmr.2020.11.003 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Dec 2016The selection criteria used in clinical trials for smoking cessation and in laboratory studies that seek to understand mechanisms responsible for treatment outcomes may... (Review)
Review
Selection criteria limit generalizability of smoking pharmacotherapy studies differentially across clinical trials and laboratory studies: A systematic review on varenicline.
BACKGROUND
The selection criteria used in clinical trials for smoking cessation and in laboratory studies that seek to understand mechanisms responsible for treatment outcomes may limit their generalizability to one another and to the general population.
METHODS
We reviewed studies on varenicline versus placebo and compared eligibility criteria and participant characteristics of clinical trials (N=23) and laboratory studies (N=22) across study type and to nationally representative survey data on adult, daily USA smokers (2014 National Health Interview Survey; 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health).
RESULTS
Relative to laboratory studies, clinical trials more commonly reported excluding smokers who were unmotivated to quit and for specific medical conditions (e.g., cardiovascular disease, COPD), although both study types frequently reported excluding for general medical or psychiatric reasons. Laboratory versus clinical samples smoked less, had lower nicotine dependence, were younger, and more homogeneous with respect to smoking level and nicotine dependence. Application of common eligibility criteria to national survey data resulted in considerable elimination of the daily-smoking population for both clinical trials (≥47%) and laboratory studies (≥39%). Relative to the target population, studies in this review recruited participants who smoked considerably more and had a later smoking onset age, and were under-representative of Caucasians.
CONCLUSIONS
Results suggest that selection criteria of varenicline studies limit generalizability in meaningful ways, and differences in criteria across study type may undermine efforts at translational research. Recommendations for improvements in participant selection and reporting standards are discussed.
Topics: Adult; Bupropion; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Laboratories; Middle Aged; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Patient Selection; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 27863344
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.10.018 -
Contact Lens & Anterior Eye : the... Feb 2024To comprehensively review the efficacy and safety of OC-01 varenicline nasal spray versus vehicle nasal spray (VNS) in the treatment in dry eye disease (DED). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To comprehensively review the efficacy and safety of OC-01 varenicline nasal spray versus vehicle nasal spray (VNS) in the treatment in dry eye disease (DED).
METHODS
A systematic review that included full-length randomized controlled studies (RCTs), as well as post hoc analyses of RCTs reporting new findings on OC-01 VNS treatment in three databases, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The search period included studies published between December 2021 and September 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to analyze the quality of the studies selected.
RESULTS
A total of 8 studies were included in this systematic review. OC-01 VNS treatment achieved higher improvement than vehicle in all reported variables. The mean differences between both groups were in favor of OC-01 VNS treatment and were as follow: eye dryness score base on a visual analogue scale (EDS-VAS) of -7.5 ± 2.2 points [-11.6 to -5.6], Schirmer test (ST) with anesthesia of 6.6 ± 2.3 mm [4.9 to 11.8] and total corneal fluorescein staining (tCFS) of -1.2 ± 0.01 points [-1.2 to -1.1]. Similar improvements were reported with OC-01 VNS 0.03 mg and 0.06 mg. Adverse events (AEs) were 15.5 ± 19.4 % [-13 to 80.5] higher in the OC-01 VNS group with an overall adherence > 93 %.
CONCLUSIONS
OC-01 VNS improves dry eye symptoms and signs with a satisfactory tolerability. Therefore, OC-01 VNS seems to be a safe and effective treatment that could be recommended in patients with DED. This new treatment could be particularly useful in those patients who have difficulties with the administration of traditional topical therapies.
Topics: Humans; Dry Eye Syndromes; Fluorescein; Nasal Sprays; Tears; Varenicline
PubMed: 38065797
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2023.102097 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Smoking in pregnancy is a public health problem. When used by non-pregnant smokers, pharmacotherapies (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline) are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Smoking in pregnancy is a public health problem. When used by non-pregnant smokers, pharmacotherapies (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline) are effective for smoking cessation, however, their efficacy and safety in pregnancy remains unknown. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), or e-cigarettes, are becoming widely used but their efficacy and safety when used for smoking cessation in pregnancy are also unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies (including NRT, varenicline and bupropion), other medications, or ENDS when used for smoking cessation in pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 July 2015), checked references of retrieved studies, and contacted authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women with designs that permit the independent effects of any type of pharmacotherapy or ENDS on smoking cessation to be ascertained were eligible for inclusion.The following RCT designs are included.Placebo-RCTs: any form of NRT, other pharmacotherapy, or ENDS, with or without behavioural support/cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), or brief advice, compared with an identical placebo and behavioural support of similar intensity.RCTs providing a comparison between i) any form of NRT, other pharmacotherapy, or ENDS added to behavioural support/CBT, or brief advice and ii) behavioural support of similar (ideally identical) intensity.Parallel- or cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-randomised, cross-over and within-participant designs were not, due to the potential biases associated with these designs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and also independently extracted data and cross checked individual outcomes of this process to ensure accuracy. The primary efficacy outcome was smoking cessation in later pregnancy (in all but one trial, at or around delivery); safety was assessed by 11 outcomes (principally birth outcomes) that indicated neonatal and infant well-being; and we also collated data on adherence with trial treatments.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes a total of nine trials which enrolled 2210 pregnant smokers: eight trials of NRT and one trial of bupropion as adjuncts to behavioural support/CBT. The risk of bias was generally low across trials with virtually all domains of the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool being satisfied for the majority of studies. We found no trials investigating varenicline or ENDS. Compared to placebo and non-placebo controls, there was a difference in smoking rates observed in later pregnancy favouring use of NRT (risk ratio (RR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.93, eight studies, 2199 women). However, subgroup analysis of placebo-RCTs provided a lower RR in favour of NRT (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.66, five studies, 1926 women), whereas within the two non-placebo RCTs there was a strong positive effect of NRT, (RR 8.51, 95% CI 2.05 to 35.28, three studies, 273 women; P value for random-effects subgroup interaction test = 0.01). There were no differences between NRT and control groups in rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, birthweight, low birthweight, admissions to neonatal intensive care, caesarean section, congenital abnormalities or neonatal death. Compared to placebo group infants, at two years of age, infants born to women who had been randomised to NRT had higher rates of 'survival without developmental impairment' (one trial). Generally, adherence with trial NRT regimens was low. Non-serious side effects observed with NRT included headache, nausea and local reactions (e.g. skin irritation from patches or foul taste from gum), but these data could not be pooled.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NRT used in pregnancy for smoking cessation increases smoking cessation rates measured in late pregnancy by approximately 40%. There is evidence, suggesting that when potentially-biased, non-placebo RCTs are excluded from analyses, NRT is no more effective than placebo. There is no evidence that NRT used for smoking cessation in pregnancy has either positive or negative impacts on birth outcomes. However, evidence from the only trial to have followed up infants after birth, suggests use of NRT promotes healthy developmental outcomes in infants. Further research evidence on NRT efficacy and safety is needed, ideally from placebo-controlled RCTs which achieve higher adherence rates and which monitor infants' outcomes into childhood. Accruing data suggests that it would be ethical for future RCTs to investigate higher doses of NRT than those tested in the included studies.
Topics: Bupropion; Female; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Varenicline
PubMed: 26690977
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010078.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist).
OBJECTIVES
To review the efficacy of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in May 2015, although we have included a few key trials published after this date. We also searched online clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomisation procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials of cytisine (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87; low-quality evidence). One recent trial comparing cytisine with NRT in 1310 people found a benefit for cytisine at six months (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80).One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). This drug is no longer in development.We identified 39 trials that tested varenicline, 27 of which contributed to the primary analysis (varenicline versus placebo). Five of these trials also included a bupropion treatment arm. Eight trials compared varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Nine studies tested variations in varenicline dosage, and 13 tested usage in disease-specific subgroups of patients. The included studies covered 25,290 participants, 11,801 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.24 (95% CI 2.06 to 2.43; 27 trials, 12,625 people; high-quality evidence). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1266 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at six months was 1.39 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.54; 5 trials, 5877 people; high-quality evidence). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.25 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; 8 trials, 6264 people; moderate-quality evidence). Four trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The number needed to treat with varenicline for an additional beneficial outcome, based on the weighted mean control rate, is 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). The most commonly reported adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Our analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment suggests there may be a 25% increase in the chance of SAEs among people using varenicline (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49; 29 trials, 15,370 people; high-quality evidence). These events include comorbidities such as infections, cancers and injuries, and most were considered by the trialists to be unrelated to the treatments. There is also evidence of higher losses to follow-up in the control groups compared with the intervention groups, leading to a likely underascertainment of the true rate of SAEs among the controls. Early concerns about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation led to the addition of a boxed warning to the labelling in 2008. However, subsequent observational cohort studies and meta-analyses have not confirmed these fears, and the findings of the EAGLES trial do not support a causal link between varenicline and neuropsychiatric disorders, including suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. The evidence is not conclusive, however, in people with past or current psychiatric disorders. Concerns have also been raised that varenicline may slightly increase cardiovascular events in people already at increased risk of those illnesses. Current evidence neither supports nor refutes such an association, but we await the findings of the CATS trial, which should establish whether or not this is a valid concern.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and three-fold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion or with NRT. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The most frequently recorded adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Early reports of possible links to suicidal ideation and behaviour have not been confirmed by current research.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support.
Topics: Alkaloids; Azepines; Azocines; Benzazepines; Bupropion; Counseling; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Quinolizines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Varenicline
PubMed: 27158893
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006103.pub7 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2024Several pharmacological interventions, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion, have been approved for clinical use of smoking cessation.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Several pharmacological interventions, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion, have been approved for clinical use of smoking cessation. E-cigarettes (EC) are increasingly explored by many RCTs for their potentiality in smoking cessation. In addition, some RCTs are attempting to explore new drugs for smoking cessation, such as cytisine. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to investigate how these drugs and e-cigarettes compare regarding their efficacy and acceptability.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review and NMA searched all clinical studies on smoking cessation using pharmacological monotherapies or e-cigarettes published from January 2011 to May 2022 using MEDLINE, COCHRANE Library, and PsychINFO databases. NRTs were divided into transdermal (TDN) and oronasal nicotine (ONN) by administrative routes, thus 7 network nodes were set up for direct and indirect comparison. Two different indicators measured the efficacy: prevalent and continuous smoking abstinence. The drop-out rates measured the acceptability.
RESULTS
The final 40 clinical studies included in this study comprised 77 study cohorts and 25,889 participants. Varenicline is more effective intervention to assist in smoking cessation during 16-32 weeks follow-up, and is very likely to prompt dropout. Cytisine shows more effectiveness in continuous smoking cessation but may also lead to dropout. E-cigarettes and oronasal nicotine are more effective than no treatment in encouraging prevalent abstinence, but least likely to prompt dropout. Finally, transdermal nicotine delivery is more effective than no treatment in continuous abstinence, with neither significant effect on prevalent abstinence nor dropout rate.
CONCLUSION
This review suggested and agreed that Varenicline, Cytisine and transdermal nicotine delivery, as smoking cessation intervention, have advantages and disadvantages. However, we had to have reservations about e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking in adolescents.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Varenicline; Network Meta-Analysis; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Smoking Cessation Agents; Alkaloids; Azocines; Bupropion; Quinolizines; Nicotine; Quinolizidine Alkaloids
PubMed: 38841681
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1361186 -
BMC Psychiatry Jul 2017People with severe mental ill health are more likely to smoke than those in the general population. It is therefore important that effective smoking cessation strategies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with severe mental ill health are more likely to smoke than those in the general population. It is therefore important that effective smoking cessation strategies are used to help people with severe mental ill health to stop smoking. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost -effectiveness of smoking cessation and reduction strategies in adults with severe mental ill health in both inpatient and outpatient settings.
METHODS
This is an update of a previous systematic review. Electronic databases were searched during September 2016 for randomised controlled trials comparing smoking cessation interventions to each other, usual care, or placebo. Data was extracted on biochemically-verified, self-reported smoking cessation (primary outcome), as well as on smoking reduction, body weight, psychiatric symptom, and adverse events (secondary outcomes).
RESULTS
We included 26 trials of pharmacological and/or behavioural interventions. Eight trials comparing bupropion to placebo were pooled showing that bupropion improved quit rates significantly in the medium and long term but not the short term (short term RR = 6.42 95% CI 0.82-50.07; medium term RR = 2.93 95% CI 1.61-5.34; long term RR = 3.04 95% CI 1.10-8.42). Five trials comparing varenicline to placebo showed that that the addition of varenicline improved quit rates significantly in the medium term (RR = 4.13 95% CI 1.36-12.53). The results from five trials of specialised smoking cessation programmes were pooled and showed no evidence of benefit in the medium (RR = 1.32 95% CI 0.85-2.06) or long term (RR = 1.33 95% CI 0.85-2.08). There was insufficient data to allowing pooling for all time points for varenicline and trials of specialist smoking cessation programmes. Trials suggest few adverse events although safety data were not always reported. Only one pilot study reported cost effectiveness data.
CONCLUSIONS
Bupropion and varenicline, which have been shown to be effective in the general population, also work for people with severe mental ill health and their use in patients with stable psychiatric conditions. Despite good evidence for the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental ill health, the percentage of people with severe mental ill health who smoke remains higher than that for the general population.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Bupropion; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Mental Disorders; Nicotinic Agonists; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 28705244
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-017-1419-7 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials was conducted to investigate the effects of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. English...
A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials was conducted to investigate the effects of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. English databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. The risk of bias for the included trials was assessed using Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. A total of 159 studies involving 60,285 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. The analysis involved 15 interventions and which yielded 105 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline was more helpful for smoking cessation than other monotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.16, 1.73)] and bupropion [OR = 1.52, 95% CI (1.22, 1.89)]. Furthermore, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy in achieving smoking cessation, such as varenicline plus bupropion over bupropion [OR = 2.00, 95% CI (1.11, 3.61)], varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy over nicotine replacement therapy [OR = 1.84, 95% CI (1.07, 3.18)], and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine over naltrexone [OR = 6.29, 95% CI (1.59, 24.90)]. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention. Most pharmacological interventions demonstrated a benefit in smoking cessation compared with placebo, whether monotherapy or combination therapy. Moreover, confirmed evidence suggested that some combination treatments, such as varenicline plus bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine have a higher probability of being the best smoking cessation in.
PubMed: 36353488
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1012433 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jan 2022The prevalence, correlates, and management of tobacco use disorder (TUD) or nicotine dependence (ND) among people with severe mental illness (SMI), namely schizophrenia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The prevalence, odds, predictors, and management of tobacco use disorder or nicotine dependence among people with severe mental illness: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
The prevalence, correlates, and management of tobacco use disorder (TUD) or nicotine dependence (ND) among people with severe mental illness (SMI), namely schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), and major depressive disorder (MDD), remain unclear. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to July 12, 2020, for observational studies documenting the prevalence, odds, and correlates of TUD/ND among people with SMI; randomized controlled trials (RCTs) informing the management of TUD/ND in people with SMI were also included. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Sources of heterogeneity were explored. Nineteen observational studies, including 7527 participants with SMI met inclusion criteria. TUD/ND co-occurred in 33.4-65% of people with SMI. Rates were higher among males. While bupropion and varenicline represent promising treatment opportunities for schizophrenia with TUD/ND, non-pharmacological interventions require further research, mainly for people with primary mood disorders. TUD/ND represent prevalent co-occurring conditions among people with SMI. Further well-designed RCTs are warranted to inform their management.
Topics: Humans; Male; Mental Disorders; Prevalence; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Disorder; Varenicline
PubMed: 34838527
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.11.039 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Jun 2021Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom.
METHODS
An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information.
RESULTS
When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most cost-effective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose + bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose + NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose + NRT standard-dose.
CONCLUSION
Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.
Topics: Bupropion; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Depression; Drug Costs; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Markov Chains; Models, Economic; Monte Carlo Method; Network Meta-Analysis; Nicotinic Agonists; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Recurrence; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Self-Injurious Behavior; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Cessation Agents; Time Factors; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Varenicline
PubMed: 34119075
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.12.012