-
JAMA Jan 2021It has been estimated that in 2018 nearly 20% of adults in the US were currently using a tobacco product.
IMPORTANCE
It has been estimated that in 2018 nearly 20% of adults in the US were currently using a tobacco product.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, and electronic cigarettes for tobacco cessation among adults, including pregnant persons, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, PsycInfo, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of Health Technology Assessment; surveillance through September 25, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Systematic reviews of tobacco cessation interventions and randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or pharmacotherapy among pregnant persons.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; qualitative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Health outcomes, tobacco cessation at 6 months or more, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven reviews addressing pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions were included as well as 9 trials (N = 3942) addressing e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and 7 trials (N = 2285) of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use in pregnancy. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions (pooled risk ratio [RR], 1.83 [95% CI, 1.68-1.98]), NRT (RR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.49-1.61]), bupropion (RR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.52-1.77]), varenicline (RR, 2.24 [95% CI, 2.06-2.43]), and behavioral interventions such as advice from clinicians (RR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.58-1.96]) were all associated with increased quit rates compared with minimal support or placebo at 6 months or longer. None of the drugs were associated with serious adverse events. Five trials (n = 3117) reported inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes on smoking cessation at 6 to 12 months among smokers when compared with placebo or NRT, and none suggested higher rates of serious adverse events. Among pregnant persons, behavioral interventions were associated with greater smoking cessation during late pregnancy (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.23-1.48]), compared with no intervention. Rates of validated cessation among pregnant women allocated to NRT compared with placebo were not significantly different (pooled RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.79-1.56], n = 2033).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
There is strong evidence that a range of pharmacologic and behavioral interventions, both individually and in combination, are effective in increasing smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults. In pregnancy, behavioral interventions are effective for smoking cessation, but data are limited on the use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Data on the effectiveness and safety of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation among adults are also limited and results are inconsistent.
Topics: Adult; Behavior Therapy; Combined Modality Therapy; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Female; Humans; Male; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy; Primary Health Care; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Cessation Agents; Tobacco Use Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Tobacco Use Disorder
PubMed: 33464342
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.23541 -
Revue Des Maladies Respiratoires Jan 2021The prevalence of smoking in asthmatic patients is similar to, or even higher than in the general population. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The prevalence of smoking in asthmatic patients is similar to, or even higher than in the general population.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review addresses (1) the effects of smoking on asthma, (2) smoking cessation strategies in asthmatic patients, and (3) the consequences of smoking cessation for people with asthma.
RESULTS
Active or passive smoking can promote the development of asthma. The few studies on smoking cessation in asthma confirm the efficacy of validated smoking cessation strategies in these patients (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, bupropion, cognitive and behavioural therapies). Smoking cessation in parents with asthmatic children is essential and is based on the same strategies. Electronic cigarettes may be a useful help to quit smoking in some patients. Smoking cessation is beneficial in asthmatic smokers and associated with (1) a reduction of asthma symptoms, acute exacerbations, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and bronchial inflammation, (2) decreased use of rescue medications and in doses of inhaled corticosteroids, (3) improved asthma control, quality of life, and lung function.
CONCLUSION
In asthmatic patients, it is essential to assess smoking status and health professionals must assist them to quit smoking.
Topics: Asthma; Child; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Nicotine; Quality of Life; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 33414027
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmr.2020.11.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using 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. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, 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 review is an update of a review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect 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 for relevant records to January 2020, 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, 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 include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 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) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (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 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I = 17%; 5 studies, 842 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 over time 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 degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. 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 main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Topics: Bias; Cohort Studies; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Middle Aged; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Prevention; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Vaping
PubMed: 33052602
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub4 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Sep 2020People with schizophrenia have higher rates of smoking than the general population, and lower quit rates. Several randomised controlled trials have investigated the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
People with schizophrenia have higher rates of smoking than the general population, and lower quit rates. Several randomised controlled trials have investigated the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation over the past 20 years. We did a systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis of smoking abstinence to guide decision making in offering pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inception to Sept 30, 2019, for randomised controlled trials of varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders or psychotic disorders who were smokers at the time of study recruitment. Data were extracted from published studies on smoking abstinence outcomes and psychotic symptoms. We did pairwise and network meta-analyses for the primary outcome of smoking abstinence. Sensitivity analyses were done on study inclusion criteria, duration, quality, and location. This study is registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO, CRD42018102343.
FINDINGS
A total of 15 111 records were identified by the database searches, and 163 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 145 articles were then excluded for several reasons including insufficient data, or abstracts published in later studies, and 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In the pairwise meta-analyses, four studies with 394 participants assessed varenicline (RR 3·75, 95% CI 1·96-7·19, p<0·0001; I=0%), four studies with bupropion and 292 participants (RR 3·40, 95% CI 1·58-7·34, p=0·0002; I=0%), and three studies with 561 participants assessed nicotine replacement therapy (RR 4·27, 95% CI 1·71-10·65, p=0·0002; I=0%). All three treatments were deemed superior to placebo. In the network meta-analysis, varenicline was superior to bupropion (RR 2·02, 95% CI 1·04-3·93; p=0·038) but no significant difference was found between varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy, or bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy. No agents were associated with changes in psychiatric symptoms, but varenicline was associated with higher rates of nausea than was placebo.
INTERPRETATION
We found evidence to support use of pharmacological agents for smoking cessation for people with psychosis. Varenicline might be superior to bupropion; however, additional direct testing and combination trials of pharmacological agents for smoking cessation are required to inform clinical decision making for people with psychosis.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Bupropion; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 32828166
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30261-3 -
British Journal of Health Psychology Sep 2020People with long-term mental health problems are heavier smokers than the general population, and suffer greater smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known...
PURPOSE
People with long-term mental health problems are heavier smokers than the general population, and suffer greater smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about the effectiveness of psychological smoking cessation interventions for this group. This review evaluates evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of psychological interventions, used alone or with pharmacotherapy, in reducing smoking in adults with mental health problems.
METHODS
We searched relevant articles between January 1999 and March 2019 and identified 6,200 papers. Two reviewers screened 81 full-text articles. Outcome measures included number of cigarettes smoked per day, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, and continuous abstinence from smoking.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs, involving 1,497 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Psychological interventions included cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), motivational interviewing (MI), counselling, and telephone smoking cessation support. Three trials resulted in significant reductions in smoking for patients receiving psychological interventions compared with controls. Two trials showed higher 7-day point prevalence in intervention plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus standard care groups. Four trials showed that participants who combined pharmacotherapy (bupropion or varenicline) with CBT were more likely to reduce their smoking by 50% than those receiving CBT only. Four out of five trials that compared different psychological interventions (with or without NRT) had positive outcomes regardless of intervention type.
CONCLUSIONS
This study contributes to our understanding in a number of ways: The available evidence is consistent with a range of psychological interventions being independently effective in reducing smoking by people with mental health problems; however, too few well-designed studies have been conducted for us to be confident about, for example, which interventions work best for whom, and how they should be implemented. Evidence is clearer for a range of psychological interventions - including CBT, MI, and behavioural or supportive counselling - being effective when used with NRT or pharmacotherapy. Telephone-based and relatively brief interventions appear to be as effective as more intense and longer-term ones. There is also good evidence for a strong dose-response relationship - increased attendance predicts improved outcomes - and for interventions having more positive than negative effects on psychiatric symptoms.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Psychosocial Intervention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 32678937
DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12431 -
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience :... Aug 2020Data regarding the efficacy and safety of smoking-cessation pharmacotherapy after stroke are lacking. We systematically reviewed data on this topic by searching Medline,...
Data regarding the efficacy and safety of smoking-cessation pharmacotherapy after stroke are lacking. We systematically reviewed data on this topic by searching Medline, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies that assessed the efficacy and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion in patients with stroke and TIA. We included studies that reported rates of smoking cessation, worsening or recurrent cerebrovascular disease, seizures, or neuropsychiatric events. We identified 2 RCTs and 6 observational studies; 3 included ischemic stroke and TIA, 2 subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and 3 did not specify. Four studies assessed efficacy; cessation rates ranged from 33% to 66% with pharmacological therapy combined with behavioral interventions versus 15% to 46% without, but no individual study demonstrated a statistically significant benefit. Safety data for varenicline and buopropion in ischemic stroke were scarce. Patients with SAH who received NRT had more seizures (9% vs 2%; P = 0.024) and delirium (19% vs 7%; P = 0.006) in one study, but less frequent vasospasm in 3 studies. In conclusion, combined with behavioral interventions, smoking-cessation therapies resulted in numerically higher cessation rates. Limited safety data may prompt caution regarding seizures and delirium in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Topics: Bupropion; Female; Humans; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Stroke; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Varenicline
PubMed: 32334957
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2020.04.026 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Tobacco smoking in pregnancy causes serious health problems for the developing fetus and mother. When used by non-pregnant smokers, pharmacotherapies (nicotine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Tobacco smoking in pregnancy causes serious health problems for the developing fetus and mother. When used by non-pregnant smokers, pharmacotherapies (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline) are effective for increasing smoking cessation, however their efficacy and safety in pregnancy remains unknown. Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are becoming widely used, but their efficacy and safety when used for smoking cessation in pregnancy are also unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and ECs used during pregnancy for smoking cessation in later pregnancy and after childbirth, and to determine adherence to smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and ECs for smoking cessation during pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 May 2019), trial registers, and grey literature, and checked references of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women, comparing smoking cessation pharmacotherapy or EC use with either placebo or no pharmacotherapy/EC control. We excluded quasi-randomised, cross-over, and within-participant designs, and RCTs with additional intervention components not matched between trial arms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods. The primary efficacy outcome was smoking cessation in later pregnancy; safety was assessed by 11 outcomes (principally birth outcomes) that indicated neonatal and infant well-being. We also collated data on adherence to trial treatments. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials that enrolled a total of 2412 pregnant women who smoked at enrolment, nine trials of NRT and two trials of bupropion as adjuncts to behavioural support, with comparable behavioural support provided in the control arms. No trials investigated varenicline or ECs. We assessed four trials as at low risk of bias overall. The overall certainty of the evidence was low across outcomes and comparisons as assessed using GRADE, with reductions in confidence due to risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. Compared to placebo and non-placebo (behavioural support only) controls, there was low-certainty evidence that NRT increased the likelihood of smoking abstinence in later pregnancy (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.74; I² = 34%, 9 studies, 2336 women). However, in subgroup analysis by comparator type, there was a subgroup difference between placebo-controlled and non-placebo controlled RCTs (test for subgroup differences P = 0.008). There was unclear evidence of an effect in placebo-controlled RCTs (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I² = 0%, 6 studies, 2063 women), whereas non-placebo-controlled trials showed clearer evidence of a benefit (RR 8.55, 95% CI 2.05 to 35.71; I² = 0%, 3 studies, 273 women). An additional subgroup analysis in which studies were grouped by the type of NRT used found no difference in the effectiveness of NRT in those using patches or fast-acting NRT (test for subgroup differences P = 0.08). There was no evidence of a difference between NRT and control groups in rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, birthweight, low birthweight, admissions to neonatal intensive care, caesarean section, congenital abnormalities, or neonatal death. In one study infants born to women who had been randomised to NRT had higher rates of 'survival without developmental impairment' at two years of age compared to the placebo group. Non-serious adverse effects observed with NRT included headache, nausea, and local reactions (e.g. skin irritation from patches or foul taste from gum), but data could not be pooled. Adherence to NRT treatment regimens was generally low. We identified low-certainty evidence that there was no difference in smoking abstinence rates observed in later pregnancy in women using bupropion when compared to placebo control (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.64; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 76 women). Evidence investigating the safety outcomes of bupropion use was sparse, but the existing evidence showed no difference between the bupropion and control group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NRT used for smoking cessation in pregnancy may increase smoking cessation rates in late pregnancy. However, this evidence is of low certainty, as the effect was not evident when potentially biased, non-placebo-controlled RCTs were excluded from the analysis. Future studies may therefore change this conclusion. We found no evidence that NRT has either positive or negative impacts on birth outcomes; however, the evidence for some of these outcomes was also judged to be of low certainty due to imprecision and inconsistency. We found no evidence that bupropion may be an effective aid for smoking cessation during pregnancy, and there was little evidence evaluating its safety in this population. Further research evidence on the efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy and EC use for smoking cessation in pregnancy is needed, ideally from placebo-controlled RCTs that achieve higher adherence rates and that monitor infants' outcomes into childhood. Future RCTs of NRT should investigate higher doses than those tested in the studies included in this review.
Topics: Bupropion; Female; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 32129504
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010078.pub3 -
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 -
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy Apr 2020: Rates of tobacco smoking are high in people with schizophrenia with greater difficulty of quitting smoking compared to the general population, which also relate to the...
: Rates of tobacco smoking are high in people with schizophrenia with greater difficulty of quitting smoking compared to the general population, which also relate to the increased cardiovascular and cancer risks in this co-occurring disorder. Therefore, effective smoking cessation pharmacotherapies addressing tobacco co-morbidity are imperative.: In this review, the authors performed an extensive systematic electronic literature review examining the efficacy and safety of first-line pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation, including varenicline, sustained-release bupropion, and nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) using continuous abstinence rates over 10-12-week periods in smokers with schizophrenia. Twelve trials reporting smoking cessation outcomes using interventions in schizophrenia were included and risk ratio (RR) was used.: Our findings support the efficacy and safety of first-line pharmacotherapies for the treatment of tobacco use disorder in smokers with schizophrenia. Further research on the long-term effectiveness and safety of these agents in community samples is warranted. Smoking cessation pharmacotherapies may warrant the consideration of the emerging use of electronic nicotine delivery systems while neuromodulation techniques also offer promise.
Topics: Benzazepines; Bupropion; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Quinoxalines; Schizophrenia; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Varenicline
PubMed: 32011186
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2020.1721466