-
Journal of the American Pharmacists... 2008To review published clinical trials on combination therapy for smoking cessation and determine the role of this regimen for treating tobacco dependence. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To review published clinical trials on combination therapy for smoking cessation and determine the role of this regimen for treating tobacco dependence.
DATA SOURCES
Search terms included in this systematic review were nicotine replacement patch, nicotine replacement therapy, nicotine replacement gum, nicotine replacement inhaler, nicotine replacement nasal spray, nicotine replacement lozenge, bupropion SR (for sustained release), combination therapy, smoking cessation, and varenicline. Trials conducted from 1994 through October 10, 2007, were identified using EBM Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Medline.
STUDY SELECTION
Clinical trials of various regimens for smoking cessation were included based on a large sample size (n > or = 200); use of first-line smoking cessation therapies; double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled design; and study duration of 1 year or more. The primary objective of the included clinical trials was to assess the efficacy of combination therapy. Studies that involved medications other than first-line therapies, adolescents, and post hoc analyses and that were not written in English were excluded.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Five clinical trials meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed. All of the studies included the use of the nicotine replacement patch along with one other agent. A total of 2,204 patients were treated. Combination therapy was significantly better than monotherapy at all pooled comparisons (P < 0.05). The aggregated relative risk of abstinence comparing combination with single treatment groups was 1.42 (95% CI 1.21-1.67), 1.54 (1.19-2.00), and 1.58 (1.25-1.99) at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Adverse effects with combination nicotine replacement therapy were minimal and similar to placebo or monotherapy.
CONCLUSION
Current literature indicates that combination therapy is statistically better than monotherapy in smoking cessation treatment as assessed by 3-, 6-, and 12-month abstinence rates. Adverse effects and adherence to combination therapy are similar to monotherapy and placebo.
Topics: Benzazepines; Bupropion; Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Quinoxalines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Disorder; Varenicline
PubMed: 18826906
DOI: 10.1331/JAPhA.2008.07063 -
BMC Public Health Dec 2006Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (approximately 3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons.
RESULTS
We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55-1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60-1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37-1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41-1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77-2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72-2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20-6.42). Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12-4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65-5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22-2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22-2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies.
CONCLUSION
NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.
Topics: Benzazepines; Bupropion; Humans; Nicotine; Quinoxalines; Smoking Cessation; Treatment Outcome; Varenicline
PubMed: 17156479
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-300 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Feb 2020Varenicline has been shown to be safe and effective in improving abstinence in smokers. However, results from randomized, placebo-controlled trials using varenicline for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Varenicline has been shown to be safe and effective in improving abstinence in smokers. However, results from randomized, placebo-controlled trials using varenicline for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are inconsistent. The present systematic review and meta-analyses aimed to ascertain whether varenicline improves drinking-related outcomes in subjects with AUDs.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid, Embase, and Scopus databases were queried using the search terms varenicline, alcoholism, alcohol-related disorders, and drinking behavior for English-language publications until August 29, 2019, of randomized, placebo-controlled trials in humans.
STUDY SELECTION
A total of 197 articles were identified by the literature search. Studies of subjects with heavy drinking or alcohol dependence/AUD that reported alcohol use-related outcomes were examined.
DATA EXTRACTION
Weighted mean difference (WMD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95% CIs were calculated. The primary outcome of interest was percentage of heavy drinking days. Secondary outcomes included the number of drinks per drinking day, percentage of days abstinent, and change in alcohol craving.
RESULTS
Ten studies (n = 731, 66.6% male, 55.1% smokers) were included in the systematic review. In meta-analyses, no significant differences in percentage of heavy drinking days (n = 597; WMD = -1.09; 95% CI, -4.86 to 2.69; I² = 22%), number of drinks per drinking day (n = 570; WMD = -0.71; 95% CI, -1.44 to 0.03; I² = 0%), or percentage of days abstinent (n = 439; WMD = 3.89; 95% CI, -1.25 to 9.02; I² = 0%) were noted with varenicline use. Overall risk of bias was low. A statistically significant decrease in craving was observed (n = 436; SMD = -0.63; 95% CI, -1.18 to -0.08; I² = 84%).
CONCLUSIONS
In the present systematic review and meta-analyses, varenicline was shown to reduce alcohol craving but not improve drinking-related outcomes in subjects with AUDs.
Topics: Alcohol Drinking; Alcoholism; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Varenicline
PubMed: 32097546
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.19r12924 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Aug 2013To evaluate tobacco smoking cessation interventions and cessation rates in the oncology population through a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate tobacco smoking cessation interventions and cessation rates in the oncology population through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
The literature was searched using PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (inception to October 2012) by 3 independent review authors.
REVIEW METHODS
Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort (PCs) studies evaluating tobacco smoking cessation interventions with patients assigned to a usual care or an intervention group. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation rates. Two authors extracted data independently for each study. When applicable, disagreements were resolved by consensus.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified 10 RCTs and 3 PCs. Statistical analysis was conducted using StatsDirect software (Cheshire, UK). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for smoking cessation interventions were calculated in 2 groups based on follow-up duration. The therapeutic interventions included counseling, nicotine replacement therapy, buproprion, and varenicline. Smoking cessation interventions had a pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.909-2.64) for patients in the shorter follow-up group and 1.31 (95% CI, 0.931-1.84) in the longer follow-up group. Smoking cessation interventions in the perioperative period had a pooled odds ratio of 2.31 (95% CI, 1.32-4.07).
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that tobacco cessation interventions in the oncology population, in both the short-term and long-term follow-up groups, do not significantly affect cessation rates. The perioperative period, though, may represent an important teachable moment with regard to smoking cessation.
Topics: Behavior Therapy; Directive Counseling; Global Health; Health Promotion; Humans; Morbidity; Neoplasms; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Prevention
PubMed: 23715685
DOI: 10.1177/0194599813490886 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Dec 2019Addiction to methamphetamine/amphetamine (MA/A) is a major public health problem. Currently there are no pharmacotherapies for MA/A use disorder that have been approved... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Addiction to methamphetamine/amphetamine (MA/A) is a major public health problem. Currently there are no pharmacotherapies for MA/A use disorder that have been approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency. We reviewed the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for MA/A use disorder to assess the quality, publication bias and overall strength of the evidence.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library) to April 2019 for systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies recruited adults who had MA/A use disorder; sample sizes ranged from 19 to 229 participants. Outcomes of interest were abstinence, defined as 3 or more consecutive weeks with negative urine drug screens (UDS); overall use, analyzed as the proportion of MA/A negative UDS specimens; and treatment retention. One SR of pharmacotherapies for MA/A use disorder and 17 additional RCTs met our inclusion criteria encompassing 17 different drugs (antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants and opioid antagonists). We combined the findings of trials with comparable interventions and outcome measures in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed quality, publication bias and the strength of evidence for each outcome using standardized criteria.
RESULTS
There was low-strength evidence from two RCTs that methylphenidate may reduce MA/A use: 6.5 versus 2.8% MA/A-negative UDS in one study (n = 34, P = 0.008) and 23 versus 16% in another study (n = 54, P = 0.047). Antidepressants as a class had no statistically significant effect on abstinence or retention on the basis of moderate strength evidence. Studies of anticonvulsants, antipsychotics (aripiprazole), opioid antagonists (naltrexone), varenicline and atomoxetine provided either low-strength or insufficient evidence of no effect on the outcomes of interest. Many of the studies had high or unclear risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of low- to moderate-strength evidence, most medications evaluated for methamphetamine/amphetamine use disorder have not shown a statistically significant benefit. However, there is low-strength evidence that methylphenidate may reduce use.
Topics: Amphetamine-Related Disorders; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antipyretics; Drug Therapy; Humans; Methylphenidate; Naltrexone; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Varenicline
PubMed: 31328345
DOI: 10.1111/add.14755 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Apr 2024Smoking is considered the main cause of preventable death world-wide. This study aimed to review the efficacy and safety of cytisine for smoking cessation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Smoking is considered the main cause of preventable death world-wide. This study aimed to review the efficacy and safety of cytisine for smoking cessation.
METHODS
This review included an exhaustive search of databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in health centers of any level with smokers of any age or gender investigating the effects of cytisine at standard dosage versus placebo, varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).
RESULTS
We identified 12 RCTs. Eight RCTs compared cytisine with placebo at the standard dose covering 5922 patients, 2996 of whom took cytisine, delivering a risk ratio (RR) of 2.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.42-3.56; I = 88%; moderate-quality evidence]. The greater intensity of behavioral therapy was associated directly with the efficacy findings (moderate-quality evidence). The confirmed efficacy of cytisine was not evidenced in trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries. We estimate a number needed to treat (NNT) of 11. Two trials compared the efficacy of cytisine versus NRT, and the combination of both studies yields modest results in favor of cytisine. Three trials compared cytisine with varenicline, without a clear benefit for cytisine. Meta-analyses of all non-serious adverse events in the cytisine group versus placebo groups yielded a RR of 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11-1.39; participants = 5895; studies = 8; I = 0%; high-quality evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Cytisine increases the chances of successful smoking cessation by more than twofold compared with placebo and has a benign safety profile, with no evidence of serious safety concerns. Limited evidence suggests that cytisine may be more effective than nicotine replacement therapy, with modest cessation rates.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Bupropion; Benzazepines; Quinoxalines; Alkaloids; Azocines; Quinolizines; Quinolizidine Alkaloids
PubMed: 38161271
DOI: 10.1111/add.16399 -
BMC Psychiatry Jul 2017People with severe mental ill health are more likely to smoke than those in the general population. It is therefore important that effective smoking cessation strategies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with severe mental ill health are more likely to smoke than those in the general population. It is therefore important that effective smoking cessation strategies are used to help people with severe mental ill health to stop smoking. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost -effectiveness of smoking cessation and reduction strategies in adults with severe mental ill health in both inpatient and outpatient settings.
METHODS
This is an update of a previous systematic review. Electronic databases were searched during September 2016 for randomised controlled trials comparing smoking cessation interventions to each other, usual care, or placebo. Data was extracted on biochemically-verified, self-reported smoking cessation (primary outcome), as well as on smoking reduction, body weight, psychiatric symptom, and adverse events (secondary outcomes).
RESULTS
We included 26 trials of pharmacological and/or behavioural interventions. Eight trials comparing bupropion to placebo were pooled showing that bupropion improved quit rates significantly in the medium and long term but not the short term (short term RR = 6.42 95% CI 0.82-50.07; medium term RR = 2.93 95% CI 1.61-5.34; long term RR = 3.04 95% CI 1.10-8.42). Five trials comparing varenicline to placebo showed that that the addition of varenicline improved quit rates significantly in the medium term (RR = 4.13 95% CI 1.36-12.53). The results from five trials of specialised smoking cessation programmes were pooled and showed no evidence of benefit in the medium (RR = 1.32 95% CI 0.85-2.06) or long term (RR = 1.33 95% CI 0.85-2.08). There was insufficient data to allowing pooling for all time points for varenicline and trials of specialist smoking cessation programmes. Trials suggest few adverse events although safety data were not always reported. Only one pilot study reported cost effectiveness data.
CONCLUSIONS
Bupropion and varenicline, which have been shown to be effective in the general population, also work for people with severe mental ill health and their use in patients with stable psychiatric conditions. Despite good evidence for the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental ill health, the percentage of people with severe mental ill health who smoke remains higher than that for the general population.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Bupropion; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Mental Disorders; Nicotinic Agonists; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 28705244
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-017-1419-7 -
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 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jan 2022The prevalence, correlates, and management of tobacco use disorder (TUD) or nicotine dependence (ND) among people with severe mental illness (SMI), namely schizophrenia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The prevalence, odds, predictors, and management of tobacco use disorder or nicotine dependence among people with severe mental illness: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
The prevalence, correlates, and management of tobacco use disorder (TUD) or nicotine dependence (ND) among people with severe mental illness (SMI), namely schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), and major depressive disorder (MDD), remain unclear. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to July 12, 2020, for observational studies documenting the prevalence, odds, and correlates of TUD/ND among people with SMI; randomized controlled trials (RCTs) informing the management of TUD/ND in people with SMI were also included. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Sources of heterogeneity were explored. Nineteen observational studies, including 7527 participants with SMI met inclusion criteria. TUD/ND co-occurred in 33.4-65% of people with SMI. Rates were higher among males. While bupropion and varenicline represent promising treatment opportunities for schizophrenia with TUD/ND, non-pharmacological interventions require further research, mainly for people with primary mood disorders. TUD/ND represent prevalent co-occurring conditions among people with SMI. Further well-designed RCTs are warranted to inform their management.
Topics: Humans; Male; Mental Disorders; Prevalence; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Disorder; Varenicline
PubMed: 34838527
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.11.039 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023While cigarette smoking has declined globally, waterpipe smoking is rising, especially among youth. The impact of this rise is amplified by mounting evidence of its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
While cigarette smoking has declined globally, waterpipe smoking is rising, especially among youth. The impact of this rise is amplified by mounting evidence of its addictive and harmful nature. Waterpipe smoking is influenced by multiple factors, including appealing flavors, marketing, use in social settings, and misperceptions that waterpipe is less harmful or addictive than cigarettes. People who use waterpipes are interested in quitting, but are often unsuccessful at doing so on their own. Therefore, developing and testing waterpipe cessation interventions to help people quit was identified as a priority for global tobacco control efforts. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of tobacco cessation interventions for people who smoke waterpipes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group Specialized Register from database inception to 29 July 2022, using variant terms and spellings ('waterpipe' or 'narghile' or 'arghile' or 'shisha' or 'goza' or 'narkeela' or 'hookah' or 'hubble bubble'). We searched for trials, published or unpublished, in any language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, or cluster-RCTs of any smoking cessation interventions for people who use waterpipes, of any age or gender. In order to be included, studies had to measure waterpipe abstinence at a three-month follow-up or longer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from waterpipe use at least three months after baseline. We also collected data on adverse events. Individual study effects and pooled effects were summarized as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models to combine studies, where appropriate. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I statistic. We summarized secondary outcomes narratively. We used the five GRADE considerations (risk of bias, inconsistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for our primary outcome in four categories high, moderate, low, or very low.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included nine studies, involving 2841 participants. All studies were conducted in adults, and were carried out in Iran, Vietnam, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, and the USA. Studies were conducted in several settings, including colleges/universities, community healthcare centers, tuberculosis hospitals, and cancer treatment centers, while two studies tested e-health interventions (online web-based educational intervention, text message intervention). Overall, we judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, and six studies at high risk of bias. We pooled data from five studies (1030 participants) that tested intensive face-to-face behavioral interventions compared with brief behavioral intervention (e.g. one behavioral counseling session), usual care (e.g. self-help materials), or no intervention. In our meta-analysis, we included people who used waterpipe exclusively, or with another form of tobacco. Overall, we found low-certainty evidence of a benefit of behavioral support for waterpipe abstinence (RR 3.19 95% CI 2.17 to 4.69; I = 41%; 5 studies, N = 1030). We downgraded the evidence because of imprecision and risk of bias. We pooled data from two studies (N = 662 participants) that tested varenicline combined with behavioral intervention compared with placebo combined with behavioral intervention. Although the point estimate favored varenicline, 95% CIs were imprecise, and incorporated the potential for no difference and lower quit rates in the varenicline groups, as well as a benefit as large as that found in cigarette smoking cessation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.24; I = 0%; 2 studies, N = 662; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence because of imprecision. We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of participants experiencing adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44; I = 31%; 2 studies, N = 662). The studies did not report serious adverse events. One study tested the efficacy of seven weeks of bupropion therapy combined with behavioral intervention. There was no clear evidence of benefit for waterpipe cessation when compared with behavioral support alone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.41; 1 study, N = 121; very low-certainty evidence), or with self-help (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.00; 1 study, N = 86; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies tested e-health interventions. One study reported higher waterpipe quit rates among participants randomized to either a tailored mobile phone or untailored mobile phone intervention compared with those randomized to no intervention (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.05; 2 studies, N = 319; very low-certainty evidence). Another study reported higher waterpipe abstinence rates following an intensive online educational intervention compared with a brief online educational intervention (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.21; 1 study, N = 70; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that behavioral waterpipe cessation interventions can increase waterpipe quit rates among waterpipe smokers. We found insufficient evidence to assess whether varenicline or bupropion increased waterpipe abstinence; available evidence is compatible with effect sizes similar to those seen for cigarette smoking cessation. Given e-health interventions' potential reach and effectiveness for waterpipe cessation, trials with large samples and long follow-up periods are needed. Future studies should use biochemical validation of abstinence to prevent the risk of detection bias. Finally, there has been limited attention given to high-risk groups for waterpipe smoking, such as youth, young adults, pregnant women, and dual or poly tobacco users. These groups would benefit from targeted studies.
Topics: Adolescent; Female; Humans; Bupropion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Varenicline; Water Pipe Smoking
PubMed: 37286509
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005549.pub4