Varenicline and counseling for vaping cessation: a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaping cessation is virtually unexplored. The efficacy and safety of varenicline for vaping cessation has not been studied and rigorous research is required to advance best practice and outcomes for people who use electronic cigarettes (EC) and want to quit. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of varenicline (1 mg BID, administered for 12 weeks, with follow-up to week 24) combined with vaping cessation counseling in exclusive daily EC users intending to quit vaping. METHODS: Design: Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: The study took place at a University-run smoking cessation center. PARTICIPANTS: People who exclusively use ECs daily and intend to quit vaping. INTERVENTION: A total of 140 subjects were randomized to either varenicline (1 mg, administered twice daily for 12 weeks) plus counseling or placebo treatment (administered twice daily, for 12 weeks) plus counseling. The trial consisted of a 12-week treatment phase followed by a 12-week follow-up, nontreatment phase. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary efficacy endpoint of the study was biochemically validated continuous abstinence rate (CAR) at weeks 4 to 12. Secondary efficacy end points were CAR at weeks 4 to 24 and 7-day point prevalence of vaping abstinence at weeks 12 and 24. RESULTS: CAR was significantly higher for varenicline vs placebo at each interval: weeks 4-12, 40.0% and 20.0%, respectively (OR = 2.67, 95% CI = [1.25-5.68], P = 0.011); weeks 4-24, 34.3% for varenicline with counseling and 17.2% for placebo with counseling (OR = 2.52, 95% CI = [1.14-5.58], P = 0.0224). The 7-day point prevalence of vaping abstinence was also higher for the varenicline than placebo at each time point. Serious adverse events were infrequent in both groups and not treatment-related. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present RCT indicate that inclusion of varenicline in a vaping cessation program for people who use electronic cigarettes and intending to quit may result in prolonged abstinence. These positive findings establish a benchmark of intervention effectiveness, may support the use of varenicline combined with counseling in vaping cessation programs, and may also help guiding future recommendations by health authorities and healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered in EUDRACT with Trial registration ID: 2016-000339-42.

Cytisine Versus Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Non-inferiority Trial.

INTRODUCTION: A smoking-cessation program was implemented as a randomized non-inferiority trial in primary care practices in Croatia and Slovenia to investigate whether a standard 4-week treatment with cytisine was at least as effective and feasible as a standard 12-week treatment with varenicline in helping smokers quit. AIMS AND METHODS: Out of 982 surveyed smokers, 377 were recruited to the non-inferiority trial: 186 were randomly assigned to cytisine and 191 to varenicline treatment. The primary cessation outcome was 7-day abstinence after 24 weeks, while the primary feasibility outcome was defined by adherence to the treatment plan. We also compared the rates of adverse events between the two treatment groups. RESULTS: The cessation rate after 24 weeks was 32.46% (62/191) in the varenicline group and 23.12% (43/186) in the cytisine group (odds ratio [OR]: 95%, credible interval [CI]: 0.39 to 0.98). Of 191 participants assigned to varenicline treatment 59.16% (113) were adherent, while 70.43% (131 of 186) were adherent in the cytisine group (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.56). Participants assigned to cytisine experienced fewer total (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.81) and fewer severe or more extreme adverse events (IRR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized non-inferiority trial (n = 377) found the standard 4-week cytisine treatment to be less effective than the standard 12-week varenicline treatment for smoking cessation. However, adherence to the treatment plan, ie, feasibility, was higher, and the rate of adverse events was lower among participants assigned to cytisine treatment. IMPLICATIONS: The present study found the standard 12 weeks of varenicline treatment to be more effective than the standard 4 weeks of cytisine treatment for smoking cessation in a primary care setting in Croatia and Slovenia. Participants assigned to cytisine, however, had a higher adherence to the treatment plan and a lower rate of adverse events. Estimates from the present study may be especially suitable for generalizations to high-smoking prevalence populations in Europe. Given the much lower cost of cytisine treatment, its lower rate of adverse events, and higher feasibility (but its likely lower effectiveness with the standard dosage regimen), future analyses should assess the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments for health policy considerations.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, 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 Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms 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 dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. 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 may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. 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 other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Psychopharmacology of smoking cessation medications: focus on patients with mental health disorders.

The adverse effects of smoking cessation in individuals with mental health disorders have been a point of concern, and progress in the development of treatment has been slow. The primary first-line treatments for smoking cessation are Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Bupropion, Varenicline, and behavioural support. Nortriptyline and Clonidine are second-line treatments used when the first-line treatments are not effective or are contraindicated. Smoking cessation medications have been shown to be effective in reducing nicotine cravings and withdrawal symptoms and promoting smoking cessation among patients living with mental disorders. However, these medications may have implications for patients' mental health and need to be monitored closely. The efficacy and side effects of these medications may vary depending on the patient's psychiatric condition, medication regimen, substance use, or medical comorbidities. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, therapeutic effects, adverse effects, and pharmacological interactions of first- and second-line smoking cessation drugs, with an emphasis on patients suffering from mental illnesses. Careful consideration of the risks and benefits of using smoking cessation medications is necessary, and treatment plans must be tailored to individual patients' needs. Monitoring symptoms and medication regimens is essential to ensure optimal treatment outcomes.

A pragmatic review of varenicline prescribing practices.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the leading preventable cause of illness and premature death worldwide. Most tobacco users desire to quit, but few are successful. Guidelines recommend varenicline as an initial treatment recommendation to support smoking cessation. OBJECTIVES: Determine whether historic warnings preclude the use of varenicline as an initial treatment recommendation in patients with and without certain comorbidities. Appendix 1 shows the questions asked in the survey. METHODS: This study was conducted in 2 parts. Part 1 of this study was a provider survey. Part 2 was a multicenter, retrospective chart review. Survey respondents were primary care providers (PCPs) or internal medicine residents within a large health system. Patients included in the chart review had a PCP appointment between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020, and a diagnosis of tobacco dependence or tobacco cessation therapy prescription. RESULTS: In total, 352 providers were included in survey distribution and 56 responses were received, resulting in a response rate of 16%. Most providers (77%) indicated that they would be likely to use varenicline as an initial treatment recommendation in a patient with no comorbidities. Providers indicated they would be unlikely to use varenicline in a patient with certain mental health comorbidities (43%, 43%, and 55% for patients with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or history of suicide attempts, respectively, with 25%, 30%, and 27% having no opinion for each group). In addition, chart review yielded data for 25,128 patients. Notably, patients with schizophrenia were found to have an odds ratio of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.77) to receive varenicline at any point in therapy, and patients with diabetes had an odds ratio of 2.66 (95% CI 2.22-3.19) to receive no treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Historic warnings for neuropsychiatric events with varenicline may still preclude usage in patients with serious psychiatric comorbidities such as schizophrenia. In addition, patients with diabetes were less likely to receive any form of tobacco cessation therapy.

Varenicline-induced drug eruption: case and review of the literature.

Cutaneous side-effects of varenicline, a selective partial agonist of the a4B2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor used to treat smoking addiction, are relatively rare and mainly consist of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. We describe an atypical clinical presentation of a varenicline-induced drug eruption, which occurred one day after drug initiation. We report this case since we believe no drug reaction to varenicline has had this clinical presentation or rapidity of onset. Clinicians should be aware of this potential adverse cutaneous reaction in patients taking varenicline for smoking cessation.

Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Cigarettes on Systemic Circulation and Blood-Brain Barrier: Implications for Cognitive Decline.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (often known as e-cigarettes) are a novel tobacco product with growing popularity, particularly among younger demographics. The implications for public health are twofold, as these products may represent a novel source of tobacco-associated disease but may also provide a harm reduction strategy for current tobacco users. There is increasing recognition that e-cigarettes impact vascular function across multiple organ systems. Herein, we provide a comparison of evidence regarding the role of e-cigarettes versus combustible tobacco in vascular disease and implications for blood-brain barrier dysfunction and cognitive decline. Multiple non-nicotinic components of tobacco smoke have been identified in e-cigarette aerosol, and their involvement in vascular disease is discussed. In addition, nicotine and nicotinic signaling may modulate peripheral immune and endothelial cell populations in a highly context-dependent manner. Direct preclinical evidence for electronic nicotine delivery system-associated neurovascular impairment is provided, and a model is proposed in which non-nicotinic elements exert a proinflammatory effect that is functionally antagonized by the presence of nicotine.

The Multi-Component Smoking Cessation Support Programme (McSCSP) is effective in patients with severe mental disorder without gender differences. / El programa multicomponente de apoyo para el cese del tabaquismo (McSCSP) es efectivo en pacientes con trastorno mental grave sin diferencias de género.

High prevalence of smoking in people with severe mental disorders (SMD) contributes to their medical morbidity and reduced life expectancy. Despite the evidence of gender differences in smoking cessation, few studies have tested those differences among people with SMD. This is a non-randomized, open-label, prospective, 9-month follow-up multicentre trial to examine gender differences in the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a Multi-Component Smoking Cessation Support Programme (McSCSP). The results showed that there were no significant differences in short- (males 44.9% vs females 57.7%, chi-square = 1.112, p = 0.292) or long-term efficacy (week 24: males 40.8%, females 42.3%, chi-square = 0.016, p = 0.901; week 36: males 36.7%, females 38.5%, chi-square = 0.022, p = 0.883) between gender, neither controlled by diagnosis or treatment. Regarding safety and tolerability, there was significant increase in abdominal perimeter in males [from 105.98 (SD 13.28) to 108.52 (SD 14.01), t = -3.436, p = 0.002)], but not in females. However, there were no significant gender differences in adverse events (constipation, abnormal/vivid dreams, nausea/vomiting or skin rash/redness around patch site). In conclusion, we have demonstrated that is effective and safe to help either male or female patients with stabilized SMD to quit smoking. However, it might be a tendency in females to respond better to varenicline treatment in the short-term. Future research with larger samples is required to more clearly determine whether or not the there are differences, in addition to their reliability and robustness.

La elevada prevalencia del tabaquismo en personas con trastorno mental grave (TMG) contribuye a su morbilidad médica y reduce su esperanza de vida. A pesar de la existencia de diferencias de género en el cese del tabaquismo, pocos estudios han evaluado esas diferencias en personas con TMG. Este es un ensayo multicéntrico de seguimiento prospectivo, no aleatorizado, abierto de 9 meses para examinar las diferencias de género en la eficacia, seguridad y tolerabilidad de un programa multicomponente de apoyo para el cese del tabaquismo (McSCSP). Los resultados mostraron que no hubo diferencias de género significativas en la eficacia a corto (hombres 44,9% vs mujeres 57,7%, chi cuadrado = 1,112, p = ,292) ni a largo plazo (semana 24: hombres 40,8%, mujeres 42,0.3%, chi cuadrado = 0.016, p = ,901; semana 36: hombres 36,7%, mujeres 38,5%, chi cuadrado = 0,022, p = ,883), incluso controlando por diagnóstico o tratamiento.  Con respecto a la seguridad y la tolerabilidad, hubo un aumento significativo en el perímetro abdominal en los hombres [de 105,98 (DT 13,28) a 108,52 (DT 14,01), t = -3,436, p = ,002)], pero no en las mujeres. Sin embargo, no hubo diferencias de género significativas en los eventos adversos (estreñimiento, sueños anormales/vívidos, náuseas/vómitos o erupción cutánea/enrojecimiento alrededor de la zona del parche). En conclusión, hemos demostrado que es efectivo y seguro ayudar a los hombres y mujeres con TMG estabilizados a dejar de fumar.  Sin embargo, podría haber una tendencia en las mujeres a responder mejor al tratamiento con vareniclina a corto plazo. Se requiere investigación futura con muestras más amplias para determinar con más claridad la existencia de diferencias, además de la fiabilidad y robustez.

Acute effects of electronic cigarettes on arterial pressure and peripheral sympathetic activity in young nonsmokers.

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are marketed as an alternative to smoking for those who want to decrease the health risks of tobacco. Tobacco cigarettes increase heart rate (HR) and arterial pressure, while reducing muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) through sympathetic baroreflex inhibition. The acute effects of e-cigarettes on arterial pressure and MSNA have not been reported: our purpose was to clarify this issue. Using a randomized crossover design, participants inhaled on a JUUL e-cigarette containing nicotine (59 mg/mL) and a similar placebo e-cigarette (0 mg/mL). Experiments were separated by ∼1 mo. We recorded baseline ECG, finger arterial pressure (n = 15), and MSNA (n = 10). Subjects rested for 10 min (BASE) and then inhaled once every 30 s on an e-cigarette that contained nicotine or placebo (VAPE) for 10 min followed by a 10-min recovery (REC). Data were expressed as Δ means ± SE from BASE. Heart rate increased in the nicotine condition during VAPE and returned to BASE values in REC (5.0 ± 1.3 beats/min nicotine vs. 0.1 ± 0.8 beats/min placebo, during VAPE; P < 0.01). Mean arterial pressure increased in the nicotine condition during VAPE and remained elevated during REC (6.5 ± 1.6 mmHg nicotine vs. 2.6 ± 1 mmHg placebo, during VAPE and 4.6.0 ± 1.7 mmHg nicotine vs. 1.4 ± 1.4 mmHg placebo, during REC; P < 0.05). MSNA decreased from BASE to VAPE and did not restore during REC (-7.1 ± 1.6 bursts/min nicotine vs. 2.6 ± 2 bursts/min placebo, during VAPE and -5.8 ± 1.7 bursts/min nicotine vs. 0.5 ± 1.4 bursts/min placebo, during REC; P < 0.05). Our results show that acute e-cigarette usage increases mean arterial pressure leading to a baroreflex-mediated inhibition of MSNA.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The JUUL e-cigarette is the most popular e-cigarette in the market. In the present study, inhaling on a JUUL e-cigarette increased mean arterial pressure and heart rate, and decreased muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA). In contrast, inhaling on a placebo e-cigarette without nicotine elicited no sympathomimetic effects. Although previous tobacco cigarette studies have demonstrated increased mean arterial pressure and MSNA inhibition, ours is the first study to report similar responses while inhaling on an e-cigarette. Listen to this article's corresponding podcast at @ https://ajpheart.podbean.com/e/aerosolized-nicotine-and-cardiovascular-control/.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in healthy adults: A network meta-analysis.

Smoking is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in different non-communicable diseases, and cessation leads to immense health benefits. The present network meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of available pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in adults. A standard meta-analysis protocol was developed and after performing a comprehensive literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane databases, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, reviewers extracted data from 97 randomized controlled trials. PRISMA guidelines were followed in data extraction, analysis and reporting of findings. Random effects Bayesian network meta-analysis was done to pool the effects across the interventions. Network graph was built, and for closed triangles in the network graph, node splitting analysis was performed. The primary outcome measure was self-reported biochemically verified smoking abstinence at six months. The number of participants achieving continuous abstinence was reported. Data for the number of participants reporting at least one adverse event was also extracted, if available. Combination of nicotine receptor agonist and nicotine replacement therapy had a significant odd of 4.4 (95%CrI:2.2-8.7), bupropion and nicotine receptor agonist 4.0 (95%CrI:2.1-7.7), bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy 3.8 (95%CrI:2.3-6.2), combination nicotine replacement therapy has an odd of 2.6 (95%CrI:1.8-3.8), and nicotine receptor agonist had a significant odd of 2.7 (95%CrI:2.3-3.2) when compared to placebo (moderate quality of evidence) for continuous abstinence at 6 months. When compared with behavioural therapy, the odds ratio of interventions was not statistically significant. Combination of nicotine receptor agonist and nicotine replacement therapy has the highest probability of being the best treatment for abstinence from smoking.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the United Kingdom Accounting for Major Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events.

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.

Psychiatric Comorbidity and Multimorbidity in the EAGLES Trial: Descriptive Correlates and Associations With Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events, Treatment Adherence, and Smoking Cessation.

INTRODUCTION: Psychiatric and substance use disorders represent barriers to smoking cessation. We sought to identify correlates of psychiatric comorbidity (CM; 2 diagnoses) and multimorbidity (MM; 3+ diagnoses) among smokers attempting to quit and to evaluate whether these conditions predicted neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs), treatment adherence, or cessation efficacy (CE). AIMS AND METHODS: Data were collected from November 2011 to January 2015 across sixteen countries and reflect the psychiatric cohort of the EAGLES trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, or placebo for 12 weeks and were followed for an additional 12 weeks posttreatment. NPSAE outcomes reflected 16 moderate-to-severe neuropsychiatric symptom categories, and CE outcomes included continuous abstinence at weeks 9-12 and 9-24. RESULTS: Of the 4103 participants included, 36.2% were diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions (20.9% CM, 15.3% MM). Psychiatric CM and MM were associated with several baseline factors, including male gender, nonwhite race or ethnicity, more previous quit attempts, and more severe mental health symptoms. The incidence of moderate-to-severe NPSAEs was significantly higher (p < .01) in participants with MM (11.9%) than those with CM (5.1%) or primary diagnosis only (4.6%). There were no significant (ps > .05) main effects or interactions with treatment condition for diagnostic grouping on treatment adherence or CE outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While having multiple psychiatric diagnoses increased risk of developing moderate-to-severe NPSAEs during a quit attempt, neither CM nor MM were associated with treatment adherence or odds of quitting. These findings reassure providers to advise smokers with multiple stable psychiatric conditions to consider using Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications when trying to quit. IMPLICATIONS: Psychiatric MM may be associated with development of NPSAEs when smokers make a medication-assisted quit attempt, but it does not appear to be differentially associated with medication compliance or efficacy. Prescribing healthcare professionals are encouraged to not only promote use of FDA-approved pharmacotherapies by smokers with complex psychiatric presentations, but also to closely monitor such smokers for neuropsychiatric side effects that may be related to their mental health conditions. NCT #: NCT01456936.

A Genome-Wide Association Study of Nausea Incidence in Varenicline-Treated Cigarette Smokers.

INTRODUCTION: Varenicline is the most efficacious smoking cessation treatment; however, long-term cessation rates tend to be <25%. Nausea, the most common side effect of varenicline, observed in ~28% of individuals treated, peaks early following treatment initiation and reduces cessation success. Genetic variation influences treatment response, however genetic contributors to individual differences in side effects are less understood. METHODS: We conducted a genome-wide association study of nausea incidence at 1 week following the initiation of varenicline treatment (corresponding to the target quit date) in 189 cigarette smokers of European ancestry (NCT01314001). Additive genetic models examining the likelihood of experiencing any versus no nausea controlled for population substructure, age, and sex. Variants with minor allele frequencies (MAF)≥10% were considered. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (30.2%) out of 189 participants reported nausea. The top variant associated with nausea was rs1568209 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.61 for A vs. G allele; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.65,4.15; p = 2.1e-7; MAF = 48.7%), mapping to the SLCO3A1 drug transporter gene on chromosome 15. In the same trial, rs1568209 was not associated with nausea in either the nicotine patch (p = .56; n = 181) or placebo (p = .59; n = 174) arms. In varenicline-treated smokers, the incidence of nausea was higher in females (44.6%; n = 74) versus males (20.9%; n = 115) (p = .001), however there was no evidence of a difference in the influence of rs1568209 on nausea between the sexes (p for sex*genotype interaction = .36). Future studies in larger samples are required to test the robustness of this finding. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in SLCO3A1 may influence the risk for developing nausea in varenicline-treated smokers, which may alter adherence and cessation. IMPLICATIONS: Varenicline-associated nausea reduces adherence and limits cessation success. Previous candidate gene association studies showed genetic factors influence nausea on varenicline. This pilot genome-wide investigation of nausea, the most common side effect associated with varenicline treatment and an important cause of treatment discontinuation, suggests the potential involvement of common variation in the SLCO3A1 drug transporter gene.

Vaping and E-Cigarette Use in Children and Adolescents: Implications on Perioperative Care From the American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Pediatric Anesthesia, Society for Pediatric Anesthesia, and American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine.

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or vaping use in adolescents has emerged as a public health crisis that impacts the perioperative care of this vulnerable population. E-cigarettes have become the most commonly used tobacco products among youth in the United States. Fruit and mint flavors and additives such as marijuana have enticed children and adolescents. E-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) is a newly identified lung disease linked to vaping. Clinical presentation of EVALI can be varied, but most commonly includes the respiratory system, gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and constitutional symptoms. Clinical management of EVALI has consisted of vaping cessation and supportive therapy, including supplemental oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation, glucocorticoids, and empiric antibiotics, until infectious causes are eliminated, and in the most severe cases, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Currently, although there is an insufficient evidence to determine the safety and the efficacy of e-cigarettes for perioperative smoking cessation, EVALI clearly places these patients at an increased risk of perioperative morbidity. Given the relatively recent introduction of e-cigarettes, the long-term impact on adolescent health is unknown. As a result, the paucity of postoperative outcomes in this potentially vulnerable population does not support evidence-based recommendations for the management of these patients. Clinicians should identify "at-risk" individuals during preanesthetic evaluations and adjust the risk stratification accordingly. Our societies encourage continued education of the public and health care providers of the risks associated with vaping and nicotine use and encourage regular preoperative screening and postoperative outcome studies of patients with regard to smoking and vaping use.

Skeletal System Biology and Smoke Damage: From Basic Science to Medical Clinic.

Cigarette smoking has a negative impact on the skeletal system, as it reduces bone mass and increases fracture risk through its direct or indirect effects on bone remodeling. Recent evidence demonstrates that smoking causes an imbalance in bone turnover, making bone vulnerable to osteoporosis and fragility fractures. Moreover, cigarette smoking is known to have deleterious effects on fracture healing, as a positive correlation between the daily number of cigarettes smoked and years of exposure has been shown, even though the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. It is also well known that smoking causes several medical/surgical complications responsible for longer hospital stays and a consequent increase in the consumption of resources. Smoking cessation is, therefore, highly advisable to prevent the onset of bone metabolic disease. However, even with cessation, some of the consequences appear to continue for decades afterwards. Based on this evidence, the aim of our review was to evaluate the impact of smoking on the skeletal system, especially on bone fractures, and to identify the pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the impairment of fracture healing. Since smoking is a major public health concern, understanding the association between cigarette smoking and the occurrence of bone disease is necessary in order to identify potential new targets for intervention.

Heat-not-burn tobacco products: an emerging threat to cardiovascular health.

Cigarette smoking is at all-time lows globally, but the use of electronic cigarettes has increased profoundly. Recent reports of electronic cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury may lead individuals to explore novel methods of nicotine consumption, such as heat-not-burn devices. IQOS from Philip Morris, a heat-not-burn device, became available for purchase in the United States in October 2019. Philip Morris claims that 8.8 million people have abandoned traditional cigarettes in favor of IQOS; however, evidence suggests that it may act as a gateway or complement to cigarette smoking, rather than a replacement. Surveys indicate that 96% of Korean IQOS users also smoke cigarettes, and 45% of Italian users of IQOS had never smoked cigarettes. In the United States, Canada, and England, susceptibility of youth to trying IQOS was slightly lower than electronic cigarettes, but higher than cigarette smoking. Heat-not-burn products produce mainstream and second-hand emissions of harmful chemicals, including nicotine, particulate matter, benzene, acrolein, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines. The levels of these emissions, despite being less than those of traditional cigarettes, are potentially harmful to cardiovascular health. A study of current smokers showed similar acute effects of heat-not-burn tobacco products and traditional cigarettes on heart rate, blood pressure, and arterial stiffness. Rats exposed to IQOS had similar vascular endothelial function impairment to those exposed to cigarettes. Heat-not-burn aerosol exposure of cultured macrophages elicited increased oxidative stress, although less than that induced by cigarette smoke. Further studies are needed to better understand the cardiovascular effects of heat-not-burn tobacco products.

The Effects of Nicotine on Cortical Excitability After Exercise: A Double-Blind Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Crossover Study.

PURPOSE: The use of smokeless tobacco/nicotine products is common among athletes, but clear evidence for their positive or negative effect on sports performance is lacking. Nicotine is a psychoactive substance involved in numerous neuronal processes including cortical excitability. The aim of this study was to evaluate its effect on cortical excitability associated with aerobic exercise in nicotine-naive healthy volunteers. METHODS: Ten nicotine-naive healthy volunteers were recruited for this double-blind, randomized, crossover study to compare the effect of snus (8 mg nicotine), an oral, smokeless tobacco product, to placebo on cortical excitability before and after aerobic exercise. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure changes in corticomotor excitability (motor-evoked potentials, MEPs) and electromyography of leg muscles during maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) to assess changes in muscle contractions. Before and after aerobic exercise and with or without nicotine treatment, MEPs and MVCs were measured. RESULTS: Analysis of TMS data showed lower motor cortex activation (lower MEP amplitude) after snus administration compared with placebo, whereas electromyography data showed no difference in muscle contraction between snus and placebo treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a general reduction in cortical excitability, without no relevant effect on physical performance.

Prescribing Prevalence, Effectiveness, and Mental Health Safety of Smoking Cessation Medicines in Patients With Mental Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a prospective cohort study of the Clinical Practice Research Database to estimate rates of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) prescribing and the relative effects on smoking cessation, and mental health. METHODS: We used multivariable logistic regression, propensity score matched regression, and instrumental variable analysis. Exposure was varenicline or NRT prescription. Mental disorders were bipolar, depression, neurotic disorder, schizophrenia, or prescriptions of antidepressants, antipsychotics, hypnotics/anxiolytics, mood stabilizers. Outcomes were smoking cessation, and incidence of neurotic disorder, depression, prescription of antidepressants, or hypnotics/anxiolytics. Follow-ups were 3, 6, and 9 months, and at 1, 2, and 4 years. RESULTS: In all patients, NRT and varenicline prescribing declined during the study period. Seventy-eight thousand four hundred fifty-seven smokers with mental disorders aged ≥18 years were prescribed NRT (N = 59 340) or varenicline (N = 19 117) from September 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015. Compared with smokers without mental disorders, smokers with mental disorders had 31% (95% CI: 29% to 33%) lower odds of being prescribed varenicline relative to NRT, but had 19% (95% CI: 15% to 24%) greater odds of quitting at 2 years when prescribed varenicline relative to NRT. Overall, varenicline was associated with decreased or similar odds of worse mental health outcomes than NRT in patients both with and without mental disorders, although there was some variation when analyses were stratified by mental disorder subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation medication prescribing may be declining in primary care. Varenicline was more effective than NRT for smoking cessation in patients with mental disorders and there is not clear consistent evidence that varenicline is adversely associated with poorer mental health outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: Patients with mental disorders were less likely to be prescribed varenicline than NRT. We triangulated results from three analytical techniques. We found that varenicline was more effective than NRT for smoking cessation in patients with mental disorders. Varenicline was generally associated with similar or decreased odds of poorer mental health outcomes (ie, improvements in mental health) when compared with NRT. We report these findings cautiously as our data are observational and are at risk of confounding.