-
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 -
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antidepressive Agents; Bupropion; Humans; Nortriptyline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Varenicline
PubMed: 32319681
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000031.pub5 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Apr 2022To determine how varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and electronic cigarettes compare with respect to their clinical effectiveness and safety. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative clinical effectiveness and safety of tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and electronic cigarettes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
AIM
To determine how varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and electronic cigarettes compare with respect to their clinical effectiveness and safety.
METHOD
Systematic reviews and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, in any setting, of varenicline, bupropion, NRT and e-cigarettes (in high, standard and low doses, alone or in combination) in adult smokers and smokeless tobacco users with follow-up duration of 24 weeks or greater (effectiveness) or any duration (safety). Nine databases were searched until 19 February 2019. Primary outcomes were sustained tobacco abstinence and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and treatment rankings and conducted meta-regression to explore covariates.
RESULTS
We identified 363 trials for effectiveness and 355 for safety. Most monotherapies and combination therapies were more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence; the most effective of these, estimated with some imprecision, were varenicline standard [OR = 2.83, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 2.34-3.39] and varenicline standard + NRT standard (OR = 5.75, 95% CrI = 2.27-14.88). Estimates were higher in smokers receiving counselling than in those without and in studies with higher baseline nicotine dependence scores than in those with lower scores. Varenicline standard + NRT standard showed a high probability of being ranked best or second-best. For safety, only bupropion at standard dose increased the odds of experiencing SAEs compared with placebo (OR = 1.27, 95% CrI = 1.04-1.58), and we found no evidence of effect modification.
CONCLUSIONS
Most tobacco cessation monotherapies and combination therapies are more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence, with varenicline appearing to be most effective based on current evidence. There does not appear to be strong evidence of associations between most tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and adverse events; however, the data are limited and there is a need for improved reporting of safety data.
Topics: Adult; Bayes Theorem; Bupropion; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Treatment Outcome; Varenicline
PubMed: 34636108
DOI: 10.1111/add.15675 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2021Co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs) among individuals with schizophrenia are a prevalent and complex psychiatric comorbidity, which is associated with increased...
Co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs) among individuals with schizophrenia are a prevalent and complex psychiatric comorbidity, which is associated with increased symptom severity, worsened illness trajectory and high rates of treatment non-adherence. Recent evidence suggests that the use of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics may provide an effective treatment option for individuals with this dual-diagnosis. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the databases PubMed, PsychInfo and Google Scholar for English-language studies, investigating the use of LAIs in co-occurring schizophrenia and substance use disorders (SCZ-SUDs). Eight reports [one case study ( = 1), one case series ( = 8), three open-label retrospective studies ( = 75), and three randomized controlled trials ( = 273)] investigated the use of LAI antipsychotics in 357 participants with SCZ-SUDs [alcohol use disorder: 5 studies, = 282; cocaine use disorder: 5 studies, = 85; amphetamine use disorder: 1 study, = 1; cannabis use disorder: 3 studies, = 160; opioid use disorder: 3 studies, = 19; methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) use disorder: 2 studies, = 9; ketamine use disorder: 1 study, = 4] and were included in this systematic review. Findings indicate significant improvements in substance use related outcomes across 7 of 8 studies, while in 6 of 8 studies, significant improvements in psychopathology-related outcomes were reported. LAI antipsychotics may be an efficacious intervention option for the treatment of SCZ-SUDs. However, varying methodological rigor, generally small sample sizes and heterogeneity of samples, settings, substances of abuse, tested LAIs and comparators, as well as psychosocial cotreatments and level of reported detail across studies requires that these findings be considered preliminary and interpreted with caution. Further research is required to better understand the effects of LAIs among individuals with SCZ-SUDs.
PubMed: 34975600
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.808002 -
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in May 2019 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 81 studies (69,094 participants), five of which are new to this update. We judged 22 studies to be at high risk of bias, 53 to be at unclear risk of bias, and six studies to be at low risk of bias. Fifty studies included abstainers, and 30 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty-eight studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (19 studies), hospital admission (six studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy. We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in abstainers, three pharmacotherapy analyses showed benefits of the intervention: extended varenicline in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 1297, risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.41, I = 82%; moderate-certainty evidence), rimonabant in assisted abstainers (1 study, RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in unaided abstainers (2 studies, n = 2261, RR 1.24, 95% Cl 1.04 to 1.47, I = 56%). The remainder of analyses of pharmacotherapies in abstainers had wide confidence intervals consistent with both no effect and a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention. These included NRT in hospital inpatients (2 studies, n = 1078, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.60, I = 0%), NRT in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 553, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, I = 0%; low-certainty evidence), extended bupropion in assisted abstainers (6 studies, n = 1697, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), and bupropion plus NRT (2 studies, n = 243, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.87, I = 66%; low-certainty evidence). Analyses of behavioural interventions in abstainers did not detect an effect. These included studies in abstinent pregnant and postpartum women at the end of pregnancy (8 studies, n = 1523, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11, I = 0%) and at postpartum follow-up (15 studies, n = 4606, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, I = 3%), studies in hospital inpatients (5 studies, n = 1385, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.47, I = 58%), and studies in assisted abstainers (11 studies, n = 5523, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.11, I = 52%; moderate-certainty evidence) and unaided abstainers (5 studies, n = 3561, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, I = 1%) from the general population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Behavioural interventions that teach people to recognise situations that are high risk for relapse along with strategies to cope with them provided no worthwhile benefit in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers, although unexplained statistical heterogeneity means we are only moderately certain of this. In people who have successfully quit smoking using pharmacotherapy, there were mixed results regarding extending pharmacotherapy for longer than is standard. Extended treatment with varenicline helped to prevent relapse; evidence for the effect estimate was of moderate certainty, limited by unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not detect a benefit from extended treatment with bupropion, though confidence intervals mean we could not rule out a clinically important benefit at this stage. Low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not show a benefit of extended treatment with nicotine replacement therapy in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers. More research is needed in this area, especially as the evidence for extended nicotine replacement therapy in unassisted abstainers did suggest a benefit.
Topics: Behavior Therapy; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 31684681
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003999.pub6