-
Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental Jul 2023Sarcopenia is a geriatric condition featured by a progressive loss of muscle mass and function and associated with various adverse health outcomes. In this review, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Sarcopenia is a geriatric condition featured by a progressive loss of muscle mass and function and associated with various adverse health outcomes. In this review, we aimed to summarize the epidemiological features of sarcopenia as well as consequences and risk factors of the disease. We performed a systematic review of meta-analysis on sarcopenia to collect data. The prevalence of sarcopenia varied between studies and depending on definition used. Sarcopenia was estimated to influence 10 %-16 % of the elderly worldwide. The prevalence of sarcopenia was higher among patients compared to general populations. The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 18 % in diabetic patients to 66 % in patients with unresectable esophageal cancer. Sarcopenia is associated with a high risk of a wide range of adverse health outcomes, including poor overall and disease-progression free survival rate, postoperative complications, and longer hospitalization in patients with different medical situations as well as falls and fracture, metabolic disorders, cognitive impairment, and mortality in general populations. Physical inactivity, malnutrition, smoking, extreme sleep duration, and diabetes were associated with an increased risk of sarcopenia. However, these associations were mainly based on non-cohort observational studies and need confirmation. High-quality cohort, omics, and Mendelian randomization studies are needed to deeply understand the etiological basis of sarcopenia.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Sarcopenia; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Malnutrition; Cognitive Dysfunction
PubMed: 36907247
DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2023.155533 -
European Urology Aug 2023Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and secondary prevention strategies.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and summarize the current evidence on the descriptive epidemiology, large screening studies, diagnostic techniques, and risk factors of PCa.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
PCa incidence and mortality rates for 2020 were obtained from the GLOBOCAN database of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A systematic search was performed in July 2022 using PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE biomedical databases. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022359728).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Globally, PCa is the second most common cancer, with the highest incidence in North and South America, Europe, Australia, and the Caribbean. Risk factors include age, family history, and genetic predisposition. Additional factors may include smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and occupational factors. As PCa screening has become more accepted, newer approaches such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biomarkers have been implemented to identify patients who are likely to harbor significant tumors. Limitations of this review include the evidence being derived from meta-analyses of mostly retrospective studies.
CONCLUSIONS
PCa remains the second most common cancer among men worldwide. PCa screening is gaining acceptance and will likely reduce PCa mortality at the cost of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Increasing use of MRI and biomarkers for the detection of PCa may mitigate some of the negative consequences of screening.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the second most common cancer among men, and screening for PCa is likely to increase in the future. Improved diagnostic techniques can help reduce the number of men who need to be diagnosed and treated to save one life. Avoidable risk factors for PCa may include factors such as smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and certain occupations.
Topics: Male; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate; Risk Factors; Prostate-Specific Antigen
PubMed: 37202314
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021 -
European Urology Aug 2023Bladder cancer (BC) is common worldwide and poses a significant public health challenge. External risk factors and the wider exposome (totality of exposure from external... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Bladder cancer (BC) is common worldwide and poses a significant public health challenge. External risk factors and the wider exposome (totality of exposure from external and internal factors) contribute significantly to the development of BC. Therefore, establishing a clear understanding of these risk factors is the key to prevention.
OBJECTIVE
To perform an up-to-date systematic review of BC's epidemiology and external risk factors.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Two reviewers (I.J. and S.O.) performed a systematic review using PubMed and Embase in January 2022 and updated it in September 2022. The search was restricted to 4 yr since our previous review in 2018.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Our search identified 5177 articles and a total of 349 full-text manuscripts. GLOBOCAN data from 2020 revealed an incidence of 573 000 new BC cases and 213 000 deaths worldwide in 2020. The 5-yr prevalence worldwide in 2020 was 1 721 000. Tobacco smoking and occupational exposures (aromatic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) are the most substantial risk factors. In addition, correlative evidence exists for several risk factors, including specific dietary factors, imbalanced microbiome, gene-environment risk factor interactions, diesel exhaust emission exposure, and pelvic radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
We present a contemporary overview of the epidemiology of BC and the current evidence for BC risk factors. Smoking and specific occupational exposures are the most established risk factors. There is emerging evidence for specific dietary factors, imbalanced microbiome, gene-external risk factor interactions, diesel exhaust emission exposure, and pelvic radiotherapy. Further high-quality evidence is required to confirm initial findings and further understand cancer prevention.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Bladder cancer is common, and the most substantial risk factors are smoking and workplace exposure to suspected carcinogens. On-going research to identify avoidable risk factors could reduce the number of people who get bladder cancer.
Topics: Humans; Vehicle Emissions; Risk Factors; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Smoking; Tobacco Smoking; Occupational Exposure
PubMed: 37198015
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.03.029 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Jun 2023COPD and adult-onset asthma (AOA) are the most common noncommunicable respiratory diseases. To improve early identification and prevention, an overview of risk factors... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
COPD and adult-onset asthma (AOA) are the most common noncommunicable respiratory diseases. To improve early identification and prevention, an overview of risk factors is needed. We therefore aimed to systematically summarise the nongenetic (exposome) risk factors for AOA and COPD. Additionally, we aimed to compare the risk factors for COPD and AOA.
METHODS
In this umbrella review, we searched PubMed for articles from inception until 1 February 2023 and screened the references of relevant articles. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational epidemiological studies in humans that assessed a minimum of one lifestyle or environmental risk factor for AOA or COPD.
RESULTS
In total, 75 reviews were included, of which 45 focused on risk factors for COPD, 28 on AOA and two examined both. For asthma, 43 different risk factors were identified while 45 were identified for COPD. For AOA, smoking, a high body mass index (BMI), wood dust exposure and residential chemical exposures, such as formaldehyde exposure or exposure to volatile organic compounds, were amongst the risk factors found. For COPD, smoking, ambient air pollution including nitrogen dioxide, a low BMI, indoor biomass burning, childhood asthma, occupational dust exposure and diet were amongst the risk factors found.
CONCLUSIONS
Many different factors for COPD and asthma have been found, highlighting the differences and similarities. The results of this systematic review can be used to target and identify people at high risk for COPD or AOA.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Asthma; Risk Factors; Air Pollution; Dust; Environmental Exposure
PubMed: 37137510
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0009-2023 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Oct 2023Cytisine is a smoking cessation medication. This systematic review incorporates recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide an updated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cytisine is a smoking cessation medication. This systematic review incorporates recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide an updated evidence-based assessment of cytisine's efficacy and safety.
METHODS
We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, for RCTs comparing cytisine to other smoking cessation treatments in adults who smoke.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
6-month biochemically verified continuous abstinence. Other outcomes: abstinence at longest follow-up, adverse events, mortality, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess evidence certainty.
RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs involving 9953 adults. Cytisine was superior to placebo (risk ratio [RR] 2.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-4.47; 5 RCTs, 4325 participants), but not varenicline (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65-1.95; 2 RCTs, 2131 participants) for the primary outcome. Cytisine was superior to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.64-4.70; 8 RCTs, 5762 participants) and nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.12-1.73; 2 RCTs, 1511 participants), but not varenicline (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.72-1.44; 4 RCTs, 2708 participants) for abstinence at longest follow-up. Cytisine increased mostly gastrointestinal adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06-1.25; 8 RCTs, 5520 participants) and NRT (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.26-1.84; 1 RCT, 1310 participants) but less adverse events compared to varenicline (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.48-0.95; 3 RCTs, 2484 participants).
CONCLUSION
Cytisine shows greater efficacy than placebo and NRT, but more adverse events. It is comparable to varenicline, with fewer adverse events. This can inform clinicians and guidelines on cytisine for smoking cessation.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Varenicline; Smoking Cessation; Nicotinic Agonists; Nicotine; Bupropion; Benzazepines; Alkaloids; Azocines; Quinolizines
PubMed: 37678096
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.110936 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Sep 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of electronic cigarettes on periodontal health compared to conventional cigarette smoke and a non-smoking... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of electronic cigarettes on periodontal health compared to conventional cigarette smoke and a non-smoking population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened for literature. Eligibility criteria included clinical studies published between 2006 and 2022 that compare e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes on periodontal health (bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), attachment loss (AL), marginal bone loss (MBL), tooth loss, molecular inflammation markers, salivary flow rate). Meta-regression analysis was used to examine the influence of moderator variables.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were found to be eligible for qualitative synthesis. Individual analyses showed that cigarette smokers had significantly higher PI, PD, AL, and MBL and increased concentrations of proinflammatory mediators than e-cigarette users and non-smokers. Meta-analysis revealed a 0.33-fold lower chance for BoP in e-cigarette users compared to smokers (p = 0.03), whereby meta-regression failed to detect any effects regarding the age of users and frequency of smoking. A 0.01-fold decreased chance for positive BoP in e-cigarette users compared with non-smokers was seen (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
The current findings suggest that that e-cigarette use might be considered a healthier alternative to cigarette smoking concerning periodontal health. Even so, harmful effects of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) usage on periodontal health were seen as well. However, a definitive decision on this research question remains elusive due to the absence of randomized controlled trials.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Electronic cigarettes, marketed as a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, are becoming increasingly popular. Evidence on the use of electronic cigarettes as a cessation aid and its beneficial impact compared to cigarette smoke remains inconclusive, so the analysis conducted in this review addresses a recent question of high clinical relevance.
Topics: Humans; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Cigarette Smoking; Tobacco Products; Smokers; Electronics
PubMed: 37526741
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05162-4 -
The American Journal of Medicine Aug 2023People who smoke conventional cigarettes are increasingly turning to electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a pathway to quitting. However, the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
People who smoke conventional cigarettes are increasingly turning to electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a pathway to quitting. However, the efficacy and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation remains controversial.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), identified through a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Inclusion was restricted to RCTs with a follow-up duration ≥6 months. The primary endpoint was the most rigorous criterion of biochemically validated abstinence at maximum follow-up, and the primary comparison was nicotine e-cigarettes versus any conventional (ie, non-e-cigarette) smoking cessation therapy. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess bias. Count data were pooled across trials using random-effects models with inverse variance weighting to estimate relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We registered the study protocol with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf.io/26fkq).
RESULTS
A total of 5 RCTs (n = 3253) were included. Compared with conventional smoking cessation therapies, the use of nicotine e-cigarettes was associated with an increase in abstinence, defined by the most rigorous criterion of abstinence reported (RR 1.77; 95% CI, 1.29-2.44). Nicotine e-cigarettes also increased abstinence (defined by the most rigorous criterion) compared with non-nicotine e-cigarettes (RR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15). The incidence of death or serious adverse events was low across all trials at maximum follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Among individuals attempting to quit smoking, nicotine e-cigarettes are more efficacious than conventional nicotine replacement or behavioral smoking cessation therapies, and may prove beneficial in reducing smoking-related health risks.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Nicotinic Agonists; Vaping; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Nicotine; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
PubMed: 37148992
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.04.014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2024Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included 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 as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). 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 pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is 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%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. 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 EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. 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 nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the 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. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is 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: Humans; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Nicotine; Nicotine Replacement Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38189560
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub8 -
Clinical Lung Cancer Sep 2023MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping is a rare oncogenic driver in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for which targeted therapy with MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) was... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping is a rare oncogenic driver in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for which targeted therapy with MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) was recently approved. Given the heterogeneity in published data of METex14 skipping NSCLC, we conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate its frequency, patient characteristics, and outcomes.
METHODS
On June 13, 2022 we conducted a systematic literature review of publications and conference abstracts reporting frequency, patient characteristics, or outcomes of patients with METex14 skipping NSCLC.
RESULTS
We included 139 studies reporting frequency or patient characteristics (350,997 patients), and 39 studies reporting clinical outcomes (3989 patients). Median METex14 skipping frequency was 2.0% in unselected patients with NSCLC, with minimal geographic variation. Median frequency was 2.4% in adenocarcinoma or nonsquamous subgroups, 12.0% in sarcomatoid, and 1.3% in squamous histology. Patients with METex14 skipping NSCLC were more likely to be elderly, have adenocarcinoma histology; there was no marked sex or smoking status distribution. In first line of treatment, median objective response rate ranged from 50.7% to 68.8% with targeted therapies (both values correspond to MET TKIs), was 33.3% with immunotherapy, and ranged from 23.1% to 27.0% with chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with METex14 skipping are more likely to have certain characteristics, but no patient subgroup can be ruled out; thus, it is crucial to test all patients with NSCLC to identify suitable candidates for MET inhibitor therapy. MET TKIs appeared to result in higher efficacy outcomes, although no direct comparison with chemotherapy or immunotherapy regimens was found.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Adenocarcinoma; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Exons; Lung Neoplasms; Mutation; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-met
PubMed: 37451931
DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2023.06.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Bupropion; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Network Meta-Analysis; Nicotine; Nortriptyline; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 37696529
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015226.pub2