-
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Sep 2016To determine the effectiveness and safety of varenicline in treating tobacco dependence in patients with severe mental illness. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To determine the effectiveness and safety of varenicline in treating tobacco dependence in patients with severe mental illness.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that compared varenicline with a placebo or an alternative intervention for smoking cessation or reduction.
SETTING
Both in- and out-patient settings in any country.
PARTICIPANTS
Adult patients aged 18 years and over with any type of severe mental illness. The systematic review included eight studies comprising 398 participants.
MEASURES
Primary outcome measures were (1) smoking cessation, (2) smoking reduction measured by changes in the number of cigarettes smoked per day and (3) number of psychiatric adverse events, which were collected at the end of treatment.
FINDINGS
The random-effect pooled estimates from the five studies that reported smoking-related outcomes found that varenicline is statistically superior to placebo in smoking cessation [risk ratios 4.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.96-9.56], and smoking reduction was higher in varenicline groups (mean reduced daily cigarettes was 6.39; 95% CI = 2.22-10.56). There is no significant difference regarding neuropsychiatric and other adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Varenicline appears to be significantly more effective than placebo in assisting with smoking cessation and reduction in people with severe mental illness. There appears to be no clear evidence that varenicline was associated with an increased risk of neuropsychiatric or other adverse events compared with placebo.
Topics: Comorbidity; Humans; Mental Disorders; Nicotinic Agonists; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Smoking; Varenicline
PubMed: 27043328
DOI: 10.1111/add.13415 -
Archivos de Bronconeumologia Oct 2023There are multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments against nicotine dependence. However, there are few...
INTRODUCTION
There are multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments against nicotine dependence. However, there are few guidelines to answer frequent questions asked by a clinician treating a smoker. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to facilitate the treatment of tobacco addiction.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
12 PICO questions are formulated from a GLOBAL PICO question: "Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of tobacco dependence". A systematic review was carried out to answer each of the questions and recommendations were made. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to grade the certainty of the estimated effects and the strength of the recommendations.
RESULTS
Varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and cytisine are more effective than placebo. Varenicline and combined nicotine therapy are superior to the other therapies. In smokers with high dependence, a combination of drugs is recommended, being more effective those associations containing varenicline. Other optimization strategies with lower efficacy consist of increasing the doses, the duration, or retreat with varenicline. In specific populations varenicline or NRT is recommended. In hospitalized, the treatment of choice is NRT. In pregnancy it is indicated to prioritize behavioral treatment. The financing of smoking cessation treatments increases the number of smokers who quit smoking. There is no scientific evidence of the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of smoking cessation in adolescents.
CONCLUSIONS
The answers to the 12 questions allow us to extract recommendations and algorithms for the pharmacological treatment of tobacco dependence.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Adolescent; Tobacco Use Disorder; Varenicline; Smoking Cessation; Nicotinic Agonists; Thoracic Surgery; Pulmonary Medicine; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Bupropion; Alcoholism
PubMed: 37567792
DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2023.07.024 -
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 -
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 -
Indian Journal of Psychiatry May 2023According to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study conducted in 2019, smoking tobacco leads to over 8 million deaths each year. Hence, it is crucial to identify... (Review)
Review
According to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study conducted in 2019, smoking tobacco leads to over 8 million deaths each year. Hence, it is crucial to identify optimal smoking cessation therapy. To compare the efficacy of varenicline versus bupropion for smoking cessation by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The Patient intervention comparison outcome time (PICOT) format is used in the study. Patients having nicotine use disorder treated with varenicline or bupropion were included, and the continuous abstinence rate (CAR) was assessed at 12, 24, and 52 weeks. The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were systematically searched, and after the screening, RCTs involving a comparison of varenicline and bupropion in smoking cessation were included. We performed a meta-analysis of three RCTs (10110 patients) by RevMan 5.4.1 statistical software to determine the efficacy of varenicline compared with bupropion in smoking cessation. The CAR at 9- to 12-week follow-up of varenicline is superior to bupropion (OR = 1.79, CI range: 1.59-2.02, < 0.001). Similarly, the CAR of varenicline is superior to bupropion for weeks 9-24 (1.51, 1.32 to 1.72) and weeks 9-52 (1.60, 1.22 to 2.12), suggesting the absolute advantage of varenicline over bupropion for smoking cessation in terms of efficacy. Both varenicline and bupropion are efficacious therapies for smoking cessation. Compared with bupropion, varenicline can significantly improve the CAR at the end of treatment, at 24 weeks, and at 52 weeks of follow-up.
PubMed: 37397838
DOI: 10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_218_22