-
Family Practice Mar 2022Dealing with the opioid crisis, medical doctors are keen to learn how to best treat opioid dependency in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Opioid replacement...
BACKGROUND
Dealing with the opioid crisis, medical doctors are keen to learn how to best treat opioid dependency in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Opioid replacement therapy is commonly used, but success rates vary widely. Since many patients still experience severe withdrawal symptoms, additional interventions are necessary.
OBJECTIVE
To review the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of withdrawal symptoms during opioid tapering or acute withdrawal in patients with long-term non-cancer pain.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in Embase.com, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials. Studies eligible for inclusion were (non-)randomized controlled trials in adults with long-term opioid prescriptions for non-cancer pain. Included trials had to compare a non-opioid intervention to placebo, usual care, no treatment, or non-opioid drug and had to report on withdrawal symptoms as an outcome. Study quality was assessed with the 2.0 Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Evidence quality was rated following the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
One trial (n = 21, some concerns regarding RoB) compared Varenicline to placebo. There was no statistically significant between-group reduction of withdrawal symptoms (moderate-quality evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from clinical trials on interventions reducing withdrawal symptoms is scarce. Based on one trial with a small sample size, no firm conclusion can be drawn. Meanwhile, doctors are in dire need for therapeutic options to tackle withdrawal symptoms while tapering patients with prescription opioid dependence. We hope this review draws attention to this unfortunate research gap so that future research can provide doctors with answers.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Humans; Opioid-Related Disorders; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 34849764
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmab159 -
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 -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2021Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc.,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.
DESIGN
Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.
SETTING
Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.
PARTICIPANTS
Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.
INTERVENTIONS
Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.
DATA SOURCES
Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.
REVIEW METHODS
Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.
RESULTS
Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.
LIMITATIONS
Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.
CONCLUSIONS
Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.
FUTURE WORK
Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Varenicline
PubMed: 34668482
DOI: 10.3310/hta25590 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2').
SEARCH METHODS
Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking.
MAIN RESULTS
Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk. An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I = 0%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Nicotine; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Weight Gain
PubMed: 34611902
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006219.pub4 -
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 -
International Journal of Clinical... Nov 2021Pharmacotherapies are widely used for smoking cessation. However, their efficacy for people with alcohol dependence remains unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effects of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation in people with alcohol dependence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Pharmacotherapies are widely used for smoking cessation. However, their efficacy for people with alcohol dependence remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to explore the effects of pharmacotherapies on smoking cessation for people with alcohol dependence.
METHODS
Five electronic databases were searched in January 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the use of pharmacotherapies to promote smoking cessation in people with alcohol dependence. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. RevMan version 5.3 was used to perform meta-analyses of the changes in smoking behaviour, and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
The search identified nine RCTs involving 908 smokers with alcohol dependence; eight were published in the USA and one in Canada. The risk of bias was low in three studies and unclear in the remaining six. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared with the placebo group, Varenicline had a significant effect on short-term smoking cessation (three RCTs, odds ratio [OR] = 6.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.49, 15.78], P < .05, very low certainty). Naltrexone had no significant effect on smoking cessation in short-term or long-term observations (three RCTs, OR = 0.99, 95% CI: [0.54, 1.81], P = .97, moderate certainty), and Topiramate had no significant effects (two RCTs, OR = 1.56, 95% CI: [0.67, 3.46], P > .05, low certainty). Only one trial reported that Bupropion did not affect smoking cessation.
CONCLUSION
Varenicline may promote smoking cessation in people with alcohol dependence. However, Naltrexone, Topiramate and Bupropion have no clear effect on increasing smoking abstinence among drinkers. The small number of studies and the low certainty of evidence indicate that the results should be interpreted cautiously.
Topics: Alcoholism; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 34228852
DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14594 -
Revue Des Maladies Respiratoires Sep 2021The effectiveness of the three validated smoking cessation medications, nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion, may be insufficient, in hard-core... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The effectiveness of the three validated smoking cessation medications, nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion, may be insufficient, in hard-core smokers.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review investigates the efficacy of combinations of different medications in smoking abstinence and their tolerability.
RESULTS
Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the combined medications with varenicline and nicotine patches vs. varenicline; two found an increase in abstinence rates with the combined medications. In one study, the beneficial effect was only observed in heavy smokers. The four RCTs comparing the combined medications with varenicline and bupropion (vs. varenicline) demonstrated an increase in abstinence rates with the combined medications, most often in heavy smokers who are very dependent on tobacco. The results of the three RCTs comparing the combined medications with bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy vs. varenicline were discordant. Three studies included other molecules (mecamylamine, selegiline, sertraline, buspirone). Combined medications were well tolerated.
CONCLUSION
Combination treatments can achieve higher smoking abstinence rates than monotherapies, especially in smokers who have failed to quit (Hard-core smokers). Treatment with a combination of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy is a therapeutic option in smoking cessation.
Topics: Bupropion; Humans; Nicotine; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 34215484
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmr.2021.05.012 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Jun 2021Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom.
METHODS
An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information.
RESULTS
When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most cost-effective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose + bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose + NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose + NRT standard-dose.
CONCLUSION
Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.
Topics: Bupropion; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Depression; Drug Costs; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Markov Chains; Models, Economic; Monte Carlo Method; Network Meta-Analysis; Nicotinic Agonists; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Recurrence; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Self-Injurious Behavior; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Cessation Agents; Time Factors; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Varenicline
PubMed: 34119075
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.12.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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 of a review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke 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 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.
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. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.
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 changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 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) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). 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 occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I = n/a; 2 studies, 727 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 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. 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 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). 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 and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by 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, 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: Bias; Carbon Monoxide; Cohort Studies; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Middle Aged; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Prevention; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Vaping
PubMed: 33913154
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub5