-
JAMA Network Open Jun 2024Significant evidence gaps exist regarding the safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy, especially for the risk of congenital malformations....
IMPORTANCE
Significant evidence gaps exist regarding the safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy, especially for the risk of congenital malformations. Consequently, professional bodies advise against the use of varenicline and bupropion and recommend caution with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Contemporary estimates of the use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy are lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To quantify the proportion of individuals using prescribed smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy and during the first trimester specifically, in 4 countries.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked birth records, hospital admission records, and dispensing records of prescribed medications from all pregnancies resulting in birth between 2015 and 2020 in New South Wales, Australia; New Zealand; Norway; and Sweden. Data analyses were conducted in October and November 2023.
EXPOSURE
Prescribed smoking cessation pharmacotherapy use (varenicline, NRT, and bupropion) during pregnancy was defined as days' supply overlapping the period from date of conception to childbirth.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prevalence of use among all pregnancies and pregnancies with maternal smoking were calculated. Among women who used a pharmacotherapy, the proportion of women with use during the first trimester of pregnancy was also calculated.
RESULTS
Among 1 700 638 pregnancies in 4 countries, 138 033 (8.1%) had maternal smoking and 729 498 (42.9%) were younger than 30 years. The prevalences ranged from 0.02% to 0.14% for varenicline, less than 0.01% to 1.86% for prescribed NRT, and less than 0.01% to 0.07% for bupropion. Among pregnant individuals who smoked, use of pharmacotherapies was up to 10 times higher, with maximum prevalences of 1.25% for varenicline in New South Wales, 11.39% for NRT in New Zealand, and 0.39% for bupropion in New Zealand. Use in the first trimester occurred among more than 90% of individuals using varenicline, approximately 60% among those using NRT, and 80% to 90% among those using bupropion.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this cohort study of pregnant individuals in 4 high-income countries, the low prevalence of varenicline and bupropion use during pregnancy and higher prevalence of NRT use aligned with current clinical guidelines. As most use occurred in the first trimester, there is a need for evidence on the risk of congenital malformations for these medications.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Smoking Cessation; Adult; Retrospective Studies; Smoking Cessation Agents; Varenicline; Bupropion; New Zealand; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Pregnancy Complications; Sweden; New South Wales; Norway; Young Adult; Smoking; Pregnancy Trimester, First
PubMed: 38941092
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.19245 -
JAMA Network Open Jun 2024Varenicline is the most effective sole pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. If used in combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), cessation rates may be... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Varenicline is the most effective sole pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. If used in combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), cessation rates may be further improved, but the efficacy and safety of the combination need to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVE
To examine whether hospitalized smokers treated with varenicline and NRT lozenges achieve higher prolonged smoking abstinence rates compared with those treated with varenicline alone.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in adult medical or surgical inpatients of 5 Australian public hospitals with a history of smoking 10 cigarettes or more per day, interested in quitting, and available for 12-month follow-up between May 1, 2019, and May 1, 2021 (final 12-month data collection in May 2022). Data analysis was performed from June 1 to August 30, 2023.
INTERVENTIONS
A 12-week varenicline regimen was initiated during hospitalization at standard doses in all participants. Participants were randomized to additionally use NRT (2 mg) or placebo lozenges if there was an urge to smoke. Behavioral support (Quitline) was offered to all participants.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was biochemically verified sustained abstinence at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-reported prolonged abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence (3, 6, and 12 months), and medicine-related adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 320 participants (mean [SD] age, 52.5 [12.1] years; 183 [57.2%] male) were randomized. The conduct of biochemical verification was affected by COVID-19 restrictions; consequently, the biochemically verified abstinence in the intervention vs control arms (18 [11.4%] vs 16 [10.1%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56-2.33) did not support the combination therapy. The secondary outcomes in the intervention vs control arms of 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months (54 [34.2%] vs 37 [23.4%]; OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.04-2.80), prolonged abstinence at 12 months (47 [29.9%] vs 30 [19.1%]; OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.05-3.00), and 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12-months (48 [30.6%] vs 31 [19.7%]; OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.07-2.99) significantly improved with the combination therapy. The self-reported 6-month prolonged abstinence (61 [38.6%] vs 47 [29.7%]; OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.93-2.39) favored the combination therapy but was not statistically significant. Medicine-related adverse events were similar in the 2 groups (102 [74.5%] in the intervention group vs 86 [68.3%] in the control group).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this randomized clinical trial of the combination of varenicline and NRT lozenges in hospitalized adult daily smokers, the combination treatment improved self-reported abstinence compared with varenicline alone, without compromising safety, but it did not improve biochemically validated abstinence.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12618001792213.
Topics: Humans; Varenicline; Male; Female; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Middle Aged; Double-Blind Method; Adult; Smoking Cessation Agents; Australia; Hospitalization; Smokers; Aged; Treatment Outcome; Nicotine Replacement Therapy
PubMed: 38935378
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.18120 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024This study aims to assess the association between nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and untreated smoking with the risk of developing eye disorders. We...
This study aims to assess the association between nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and untreated smoking with the risk of developing eye disorders. We employed a new-user design to investigate the association between NRT use and the incidence of eye disorders by the Taiwan National Health Insurance program. This study included 8416 smokers who received NRT and 8416 smokers who did not receive NRT (control group) matched using propensity scores between 2007 and 2018. After adjustment for relevant factors, a multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that compared with untreated smokers, NRT use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of macular degeneration (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.87, P = 0.024). When stratified by dose, short-term NRT use (8-28 defined daily doses) was associated with significantly lower risk of glaucoma (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16-0.80, P = 0.012) and a trend toward reduced risk of cataract (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.36-1.01, P = 0.053) compared to no treatment. However, these associations were not observed with long-term NRT use. The results of this real-world observational study indicate that NRT use, particularly short-term use, was associated with a lower risk of certain eye disorders compared to no treatment for smoking cessation. Long-term NRT use did not demonstrate the same benefits. Thus, short-term NRT may be a beneficial treatment strategy for reducing the risk of eye disorders in smokers attempting to quit. However, further evidence is required to verify these findings and determine the optimal duration of NRT use.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Smoking Cessation; Glaucoma; Middle Aged; Macular Degeneration; Retrospective Studies; Cataract; Taiwan; Aged; Adult; Smoking; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Incidence; Varenicline
PubMed: 38926484
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-65813-8 -
Bladder Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2024Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of bladder cancer (BC). Some proponents of e-cigarettes describe their use as a risk mitigation strategy despite...
BACKGROUND
Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of bladder cancer (BC). Some proponents of e-cigarettes describe their use as a risk mitigation strategy despite potential carcinogen exposure and uncertain long-term risks.
OBJECTIVE
We assessed smoking cessation strategies, including e-cigarette use, and harm perception among patients with BC.
METHODS
We performed a cross-sectional study on a convenience sample of patients with BC at a single institution from August 2021 - October 2022. The survey instrument was sourced from the Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) from the American Association for Cancer Research with standardized questions on tobacco use, cessation questions, and e-cigarette harm perceptions.
RESULTS
Of the 104 surveyed BC patients (mean age: 72 years; 27% female; 55% with muscle-invasive disease), 20% were current smokers (median pack years: 40) and 51% were former smokers (median pack years: 20). A minority (9%) had quit smoking at the time of diagnosis. Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation included nicotine patches (25%), gum (21%), lozenges (8%), e-cigarettes (8%), and Varenicline/Bupropion (4%). Notably, 43% of patients who continued to smoke expressed willingness to switch to e-cigarettes as a cessation aid. E-cigarette users (11%) more commonly perceived e-cigarettes as non-harmful compared to former (4%) and non-smokers (4%) ( = .048), though all groups regarded e-cigarettes as equally addictive as traditional cigarettes.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the prevalence of BC survivors who continue to smoke, a significant proportion perceive e-cigarettes as a viable and less harmful cessation aid. The infrequent use of FDA-approved pharmacotherapies underscores potential implementation gaps. These findings highlight the need for further research and targeted interventions in addressing smoking cessation among BC survivors.
PubMed: 38911483
DOI: No ID Found -
JAMA Internal Medicine Jun 2024Little is known about the relative effectiveness of nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes (ECs) compared with varenicline as smoking cessation aids.
IMPORTANCE
Little is known about the relative effectiveness of nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes (ECs) compared with varenicline as smoking cessation aids.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the relative effectiveness of ECs in smoking cessation.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This randomized placebo-controlled single-center trial was conducted in northern Finland. Participants aged 25 to 75 years who smoked daily and had volunteered to quit smoking were recruited from August 1, 2018, to February 20, 2020, via local media. The trial included 52 weeks of follow-up. All data analyses were conducted from September 1, 2022, to January 15, 2024. The participants, study nurses, and researchers were masked to group assignment.
INTERVENTION
The participants were assigned by block randomization to receive 18 mg/mL of nicotine-containing ECs together with placebo tablets, varenicline with standard dosing together with nicotine-free ECs, or placebo tablets together with nicotine-free ECs, all combined with a motivational interview, with the intervention phase lasting for 12 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE
The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day conventional cigarette smoking abstinence as confirmed by the exhaled carbon monoxide level on week 26. The analysis followed the intent-to-treat principle.
RESULTS
Of the 561 recruited participants, 458 (81.6%) eligible participants (257 women [56%]; 201 men [44%]; mean [SD] age, 51 [11.6] years) were randomized. The primary outcome occurred in 61 of 152 participants (40.4%) in the EC group, 67 of 153 (43.8%) in the varenicline group, and 30 of 153 (19.7%) in the placebo group (P < .001). In the pairwise comparison, placebo differed statistically significantly from ECs (risk difference [RD], 20.7%; 95% CI, 10.4-30.4; P < .001) and varenicline (RD, 24.1%; 95% CI, 13.7-33.7; P < .001), but the difference was statistically insignificant between ECs and varenicline (RD, 3.4%; 95% CI, -7.6 to 14.3; P = .56). No serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
This randomized clinical trial found that varenicline and nicotine-containing ECs were both effective in helping individuals in quitting smoking conventional cigarettes for up to 6 months.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03235505.
PubMed: 38884987
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.1822 -
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 2024The purpose of this study is to delineate anti-inflammatory and antioxidant potential of varenicline, a cigarette smoking cessation aid, on decreasing...
The purpose of this study is to delineate anti-inflammatory and antioxidant potential of varenicline, a cigarette smoking cessation aid, on decreasing lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-elevated proinflammatory cytokines in RAW 264.7 murine macrophage cultures which we showed earlier to occur via cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway (CAP) activation. To this end, we investigated the possible suppressive capacity of varenicline on LPS-regulated cyclooxygenase (COX-1 and COX-2) via α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (α7nAChR) activation using the same model. In order to test anti-inflammatory effectiveness of varenicline, the levels of COX isoforms and products (PGE2, 6-keto PGF1α, a stable analog of PGI2, and TXA2) altered after LPS administration were determined by Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). The antioxidant effects of varenicline were assessed by measuring reductions in reactive oxygen species (ROS) using a f intracellular a. We further investigated the contribution of nAChR subtypes by using non-selective and/or selective α7nAChR antagonists. The results were compared with that of conventional anti-inflammatory medications, such as ibuprofen, celecoxib and dexamethasone. Varenicline significantly reduced LPS-induced COX-1, COX-2 and prostaglandin levels and ROS to an extent similar to that observed with anti-inflammatory agents used. Significant downregulation in LPS-induced COX isoforms and associated decreases in PGE2, 6-keto PGF1α, and TXA2 levels along with reduction in ROS may be partly mediated via varenicline-activated α7nAChRs.
PubMed: 38859932
DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2024.1392689 -
Nicotine & Tobacco Research : Official... Jun 2024Persons with behavioral health conditions are disproportionally burdened by their tobacco use. Research is limited on how often this patient population is offered...
INTRODUCTION
Persons with behavioral health conditions are disproportionally burdened by their tobacco use. Research is limited on how often this patient population is offered tobacco cessation interventions at healthcare visits. This study examines if cessation treatment offered at healthcare visits differs based on the clinical condition.
METHODS
Using data from the 2015-2018 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), we examined tobacco cessation counseling and medications (bupropion, nicotine replacement therapies and varenicline) from 4,590 visits by patients with current tobacco use. Separate multivariate logistic regressions were used to assess whether the odds of receiving tobacco cessation treatment varied by three groups of clinical conditions: (1) substance use disorder and/or alcohol use disorder, (2) depression, and (3) physical conditions.
RESULTS
The odds of being offered smoking cessation counseling are 4.02 times greater for visits by patients with substance use disorder and/or alcohol use disorder compared to visits by patients with depression (p<.001), while the odds of receiving smoking cessation medication are 2.36 times greater for visits by patients with depression compared to visits by patients with substance use disorder and/or alcohol use disorder (p<.01). Visits by patients with substance use disorder and/or alcohol use disorder have 2.36 times the odds of receiving any combination of tobacco cessation treatment compared to visits by patients with depression (p<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Providers are offering cessation treatment at visits by patients with behavioral health conditions at either higher or comparable rates to those without, however, tobacco cessation treatment continues to be underutilized by providers during office visits.
IMPLICATIONS
The results of our study have implications for increasing educational opportunities for healthcare providers to improve their confidence in offering tobacco cessation treatment to patients with behavioral health conditions. These patients are motivated to quit smoking, yet cessation treatment is underutilized in this population despite having a greater health effect than most other clinical interventions. Incorporating tobacco cessation education in medical school curricula and post-graduate training can help eliminate barriers for physicians to routinely provide cessation assistance. Collaboration between clinicians and behavioral health providers can also enhance tobacco treatment support and improve cessation rates.
PubMed: 38847741
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntae144 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2024Several pharmacological interventions, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion, have been approved for clinical use of smoking cessation.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Several pharmacological interventions, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion, have been approved for clinical use of smoking cessation. E-cigarettes (EC) are increasingly explored by many RCTs for their potentiality in smoking cessation. In addition, some RCTs are attempting to explore new drugs for smoking cessation, such as cytisine. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to investigate how these drugs and e-cigarettes compare regarding their efficacy and acceptability.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review and NMA searched all clinical studies on smoking cessation using pharmacological monotherapies or e-cigarettes published from January 2011 to May 2022 using MEDLINE, COCHRANE Library, and PsychINFO databases. NRTs were divided into transdermal (TDN) and oronasal nicotine (ONN) by administrative routes, thus 7 network nodes were set up for direct and indirect comparison. Two different indicators measured the efficacy: prevalent and continuous smoking abstinence. The drop-out rates measured the acceptability.
RESULTS
The final 40 clinical studies included in this study comprised 77 study cohorts and 25,889 participants. Varenicline is more effective intervention to assist in smoking cessation during 16-32 weeks follow-up, and is very likely to prompt dropout. Cytisine shows more effectiveness in continuous smoking cessation but may also lead to dropout. E-cigarettes and oronasal nicotine are more effective than no treatment in encouraging prevalent abstinence, but least likely to prompt dropout. Finally, transdermal nicotine delivery is more effective than no treatment in continuous abstinence, with neither significant effect on prevalent abstinence nor dropout rate.
CONCLUSION
This review suggested and agreed that Varenicline, Cytisine and transdermal nicotine delivery, as smoking cessation intervention, have advantages and disadvantages. However, we had to have reservations about e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking in adolescents.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Varenicline; Network Meta-Analysis; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Smoking Cessation Agents; Alkaloids; Azocines; Bupropion; Quinolizines; Nicotine; Quinolizidine Alkaloids
PubMed: 38841681
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1361186 -
Journal of Cannabis Research May 2024Cannabis has been shown to impact driving due to changes produced by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of cannabis. Current legal thresholds...
BACKGROUND
Cannabis has been shown to impact driving due to changes produced by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of cannabis. Current legal thresholds for blood THC while driving are based predominantly on evidence utilizing smoked cannabis. It is known that levels of THC in blood are lower after eating cannabis as compared to smoking yet the impact of edibles on driving and associated blood THC has never been studied.
METHODS
Participants drove a driving simulator before and after ingesting their preferred legally purchased cannabis edible. In a counterbalanced control session, participants did not consume any THC or cannabidiol (CBD). Blood was collected for measurement of THC and metabolites as well as CBD. Subjective experience was also assessed.
RESULTS
Participants consumed edibles with, on average, 7.3 mg of THC, which is less than the maximum amount available in a single retail package in Ontario, providing an ecologically valid test of cannabis edibles. Compared to control, cannabis edibles produced a decrease in mean speed 2 h after consumption but not at 4 and 6 h. Under dual task conditions in which participants completed a secondary task while driving, changes in speed were not significant after the correction for multiple comparison. No changes in standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; 'weaving'), maximum speed, standard deviation of speed or reaction time were found at any time point or under either standard or dual task conditions. Mean THC levels were significantly increased, relative to control, after consuming the edible but remained relatively low at approximately 2.8 ng/mL 2 h after consumption. Driving impairment was not correlated with blood THC. Subjective experience was altered for 7 h and participants were less willing/able to drive for up to 6 h, suggesting that the edible was intoxicating.
INTERPRETATION
This is the first study of the impact of cannabis edibles on simulated driving. Edibles were intoxicating as revealed by the results of subjective assessments (VAS), and there was some impact on driving. Detection of driving impairment after the use of cannabis edibles may be difficult.
PubMed: 38822413
DOI: 10.1186/s42238-024-00234-y