IntEgrating Smoking Cessation treAtment into usual online Psychological care for people with common mEntal illness: Protocol for an online randomised feasibility and pilot study (ESCAPE digital).

BACKGROUND: In the UK, smoking prevalence in people with depression (34%) and anxiety (29%) is more than double that of the general population (13%). People who stop smoking improve their mental health with comparable effect sizes found for antidepressants. In England, online psychological therapy is a standard treatment for depression and anxiety. Online therapy is an acceptable setting for smoking cessation support; however, integrated smoking and mental health support is not available. This novel study aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an online smoking cessation intervention, and trial procedures, offered alongside online mental health treatment as it offers increased reach to people with common mental health difficulties who smoke. METHODS: A two-armed; Intervention (Integrated SilverCloud smoking cessation support) and control group (SilverCloud usual care), pragmatic, randomised controlled feasibility trial. We aim to recruit 500 adult smokers eligible for online mental health treatment. Follow-up will be conducted at 3-months and 6-months. We will assess the acceptability and feasibility of the trial procedures (i.e., recruitment, data completeness, self-reported acceptability and satisfaction) and the intervention (i.e., self-reported quit attempt, engagement with the smoking cessation and mental health programs, smoking cessation medicine and e-cigarette use, self-reported acceptability and satisfaction) and pilot clinical outcomes (i.e., biologically validated smoking abstinence, anxiety, depression, quality of health). CONCLUSION: If the Trial is successful, a randomised controlled effectiveness trial will follow to examine whether integrated smoking cessation and mental health treatment increases smoking abstinence and improves depression and anxiety compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10612149 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10612149), 02/02/2023.

Smoking Cessation and Changes in Anxiety and Depression in Adults With and Without Psychiatric Disorders.

Importance: Although many people report a desire to quit smoking, concerns about mental health worsening after quitting are often raised by clinicians and people who smoke. Objective: To assess changes in mental health following smoking cessation using 3 confirmatory coprimary analytical approaches. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using data from a large, randomized clinical trial, the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study. Analytical approaches included multivariable Tobit regression, propensity score adjustment, and instrumental variable regressions conducted from August to October 2022. Missing data were imputed for sensitivity analysis. The trial occurred in 16 countries at 140 centers between 2011 and 2015. Only data from participants who completed the trial collected in the US were available for this secondary analysis. Participants included adults with or without a psychiatric disorder who smoked. Exposure: Smoking abstinence between weeks 9 through 24. Main Outcomes and Measures: Anxiety and depression scores were measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 24 weeks, where a lower score indicates better mental health (range, 0-21). Results: Of the 4260 participants included (mean [SD] age, 46.5 [12.4] years; 2485 women [58.3%]; 3044 White individuals [71.5%]), 2359 (55.4%) had a history of mental illness. The mean (SD) baseline Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score was 4.25 (3.68) (median [IQR], 3 [1-6]) for anxiety and 2.44 (2.91) (median [IQR], 1 [0-4]) for depression. After adjustment for demographics and baseline variables, smoking cessation was associated with a decrease in scores for both anxiety (-0.40 point; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.22 point) and depression (-0.47 point; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.33 point) compared with continuing smoking. Similarly, propensity score-adjusted models indicated that smoking cessation was associated with reduced scores for anxiety (ß = -0.32; 95% CI, -0.53 to -0.11) and depression (ß = -0.42; 95% CI, -0.60 to -0.24). Instrumental variable analysis was underpowered, and estimates were imprecise. Findings were robust to planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses, with larger effect sizes in people with a history of mental illness. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of people with and without psychiatric disorders, smoking cessation, sustained for at least 15 weeks, was associated with improved mental health outcomes in observational analyses, but the instrumental variable analysis provided inconclusive evidence. Findings like these may reassure people who smoke and their clinicians that smoking cessation likely will not worsen and may improve mental health.

An application of the stress-diathesis model: A review about the association between smoking tobacco, smoking cessation, and mental health.

Background: Worldwide, approximately 24% of all adults smoke, but smoking is up to twice as prevalent in people with mental ill-health. There is growing evidence that smoking may be a causal risk factor in the development of mental illness, and that smoking cessation leads to improved mental health. Methods: In this scholarly review we have: (1) used a modern adaptation of the Bradford-Hill criteria to bolster the argument that smoking could cause mental ill-health and that smoking cessation could reverse these effects, and (2) by considering psychological, biological, and environmental factors, we have structured the evidence to-date into a stress-diathesis model. Results: Our model suggests that smoking is a psychobiological stressor, but that the magnitude of this effect is mediated and modulated by the individual's diathesis to develop mental ill-health and other vulnerability and protective factors. We explore biological mechanisms that underpin the model, such as tobacco induced damage to neurological systems and oxidative stress pathways. Furthermore, we discuss evidence indicating that it is likely that these systems repair after smoking cessation, leading to better mental health. Conclusion: Based on a large body of literature including experimental, observational, and novel causal inference studies, there is consistent evidence showing that smoking can negatively affect the brain and mental health, and that smoking cessation could reverse the mental ill-health caused by smoking. Our model suggests that smoking prevention and treatment strategies have a role in preventing and treating mental illness as well as physical illness.

Acceptability of integrating smoking cessation treatment into routine care for people with mental illness: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPTs) Services could offer smoking cessation treatment to improve physical and psychological outcomes for service users, but it currently does not. This study aimed to understand participants' views and experiences of receiving a novel smoking cessation intervention as part of the ESCAPE trial (intEgrating Smoking Cessation treatment As part of usual Psychological care for dEpression and anxiety). We used the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to understand the (i) acceptability of the integrated smoking cessation treatment, (ii) views of psychological well-being practitioners' (PWPs) ability to deliver the smoking cessation treatment and (iii) positive and negative impacts of smoking cessation treatment. METHODS: This was a qualitative study embedded within a feasibility randomized-controlled trial (ESCAPE) in primary care services in the United Kingdom (IAPT). Thirty-six participants (53% female) from both usual care and intervention arms of the ESCAPE trial, including both quitters and nonquitters, were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a framework approach to thematic analysis, using the COM-B as a theoretical frame. RESULTS: Psychological Capability: Integrated smoking cessation treatment was acceptable and encouraged participants to reflect on their mental health. Some participants found it difficult to understand nicotine withdrawal symptoms. MOTIVATION: Participants were open to change during the event of presenting to IAPT. Some described being motivated to take part in the intervention by curiosity, to see whether quitting smoking would help their mental health. Physical Opportunity: IAPT has a natural infrastructure for supporting integrated treatment, but there were some barriers such as session duration and interventions feeling segmented. Social Opportunity: Participants viewed PWPs as having good interpersonal skills to deliver a smoking cessation intervention. CONCLUSION: People with common mental illness generally accepted integrated smoking cessation and mental health treatment. Smoking cessation treatment fits well within IAPT's structure; however, there are barriers to implementation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Before data collection, we consulted with people with lived experience of smoking and/or mental illness and lay public members regarding the aims, design and interview schedules. After analysis, two people with lived experience of smoking and mental illness individually gave feedback on the final themes and quotes.

Service-user experiences of an integrated psychological intervention for depression or anxiety and tobacco smoking in improving access to psychological therapies services: A qualitative investigation into mechanisms of change in quitting smoking.

INTRODUCTION: High smoking prevalence leads to increased morbidity and mortality in individuals with depression/anxiety. Integrated interventions targeting both smoking and mood have been found to be more effective than those targeting smoking alone, but the mechanisms of change of these interventions have not been investigated. This qualitative study aimed to understand participants' experiences of the mechanisms underlying change in smoking behaviour following an integrated cognitive behavioural technique-based intervention for smoking cessation and depression/anxiety. METHODS: This study was embedded within an ongoing randomized-controlled acceptability and feasibility trial (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN99531779). Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 IAPT service users. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. During the interviews, participants were asked open-ended questions about their quitting experience and perception of how the intervention aided their behaviour change. RESULTS: Five themes were identified. Acquiring an increased awareness of smoking patterns: participants described an increased understanding of how smoking was contributing towards their mental health difficulty. Developing individualized strategies: participants described acquiring 'a couple of tricks up your sleeve' that were helpful in making smoking cessation feel more 'manageable'. Practitioner style as 'supportive but not lecture-y': participants expressed how important the therapeutic alliance was in helping change their smoking behaviour. Importance of regular sessions: participants expressed the importance of 'having someone that's checking in on you'. Having the opportunity to access the intervention at 'the right time': participants described the intervention as the 'push' that they 'needed'. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified key factors towards smoking behaviour change. Perceived increased awareness of how smoking negatively impacted participants' mental health, and the opportunity to be offered smoking cessation treatment in a 'non-judgemental', 'supportive' environment, with regular sessions and individualized strategies contributed to successful smoking cessation outcomes. If similar results are found in more diverse samples, these aspects should be embedded within integrated interventions for smoking cessation and depression/anxiety. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Persons with lived experience of depression, anxiety and tobacco addiction contributed towards the design of the interview schedule, participant information sheets and the debriefing process. This was to ensure that interview questions were relevant, nonjudgemental and acceptable for those who did not manage to quit smoking.

Critical appraisal of interventional clinical trials assessing heated tobacco products: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To critically assess the methodological characteristics and quality of interventional clinical trials investigating the effects of heated tobacco products (HTPs). DATA SOURCES: Web of Science (Core collection and MEDLINE), Scopus, MedRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP trial databases and transnational HTP manufacturer online publication libraries were searched for clinical trials on HTPs published between January 2010 and April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Interventional clinical trials of any design, in which at least one group of adult participants used a currently marketed HTP, were selected by two reviewers with good or very good agreement. DATA EXTRACTION: Data relating to trial characteristics and effects of intervention on primary outcomes were extracted using a predesigned form. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool v1. DATA SYNTHESIS: 40 trials were included, 29 of which were tobacco industry affiliated. Methodological characteristics, such as registration, design, setting, comparator interventions, participants, outcomes and analyses, varied between trials, though there were few significant differences between industry-affiliated and independent trials. Of the 40 trials, 33 were judged to be at high risk of bias and 6 at unclear risk of bias. Trial findings were not significantly associated with either affiliation or risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The conduct and reporting of HTP interventional clinical trials were poor in many respects and limited to investigating effects of short-term exposure. These trials fall short of what is needed to determine whether HTPs are beneficial to public health, meaning they may not be a sound basis for tobacco control policy decisions.

Effectiveness of Mental Health Warnings on Tobacco Packaging in People With and Without Common Mental Health Conditions: An Online Randomised Experiment.

Background: Health warning labels on tobacco packaging are a cost-effective means of health risk communication. However, while an extensive range of physical health risks are well-portrayed via current tobacco health warnings in the UK, there are none that currently portray the negative impact of smoking on mental health. Aims: (i) develop novel mental health warning labels for tobacco packaging and (ii) test perceptions of these warnings in smokers and non-smokers, with and without mental health problems. Methods: Six mental health warning labels were developed with a consultancy focus group. These warning labels were tested in an online randomised experiment, where respondents (N = 687) rated six Mental Health Warning Labels (MHWLs) and six Physical Health Warning Labels (PHWLs) on measures of perceived effectiveness, believability, arousal, valence, acceptability, reactance and novelty of information. Results: MHWLs were perceived as low to moderately effective (mean = 4.02, SD = 2.40), but less effective than PHWLs (mean = 5.78, SD = 2.55, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.63). MHWLs were perceived as less believable, arousing, unpleasant, and acceptable than PHWLs. MHWLs evoked more reactance and were rated as more novel. Perceptions of MHWLs did not differ in people with and without mental health problems except for reactance and acceptability, but consistent with the PHWL literature, perceptions of MHWLs differed between non-smokers and smokers. Conclusion: MHWLs could be an effective means to communicate novel information about the effects of smoking on mental health. MHWLs are perceived as less effective, believable, arousing, unpleasant, and acceptable than PHWLs, but MHWLs evoke more reactance and are rated as more novel.

Prenatal smoking, alcohol and caffeine exposure and offspring externalizing disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several studies have indicated an association between maternal prenatal substance use and offspring externalizing disorders; however, it is uncertain whether this relationship is causal. We conducted a systematic review to determine: (1) if the literature supports a causal role of maternal prenatal substance use on offspring externalizing disorders diagnosis and (2) whether these associations differ across externalizing disorders. METHODS: We searched Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO and Medline databases. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and where possible meta-analysis was conducted for studies classed as low risk of bias. We included studies of any design that examined prenatal smoking, alcohol or caffeine use. Studies in non-English language, fetal alcohol syndrome and comorbid autism spectrum disorders were excluded. Participants in the included studies were mothers and their offspring. Measurements included prenatal smoking, alcohol or caffeine use as an exposure, and diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in offspring as an outcome. RESULTS: We included 63 studies, 46 of which investigated smoking and ADHD. All studies were narratively synthesized, and seven studies on smoking and ADHD were meta-analysed. The largest meta-analysis based on genetically sensitive design included 1 011 546 participants and did not find evidence for an association [odds ratio (OR)1-9 cigarettes = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.83-1.11; OR > 10 cigarettes = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.79-1.36). Studies on alcohol exposure in all the outcomes reported inconsistent findings and no strong conclusions on causality can be made. Studies on caffeine exposure were mainly limited to ADHD and these studies do not support a causal effect. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be no clear evidence to support a causal relationship between maternal prenatal smoking and offspring attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Findings with alcohol and caffeine exposures and conduct disorder and oppositional-defiant disorder need more research, using more genetically sensitive designs.

Addressing concerns about smoking cessation and mental health: theoretical review and practical guide for healthcare professionals.

Smoking rates in people with depression and anxiety are twice as high as in the general population, even though people with depression and anxiety are motivated to stop smoking. Most healthcare professionals are aware that stopping smoking is one of the greatest changes that people can make to improve their health. However, smoking cessation can be a difficult topic to raise. Evidence suggests that smoking may cause some mental health problems, and that the tobacco withdrawal cycle partly contributes to worse mental health. By stopping smoking, a person's mental health may improve, and the size of this improvement might be equal to taking anti-depressants. In this theoretical review and practical guide we outline ways in which healthcare professionals can raise the topic of smoking compassionately and respectfully to encourage smoking cessation. We draw on evidence-based methods like cognitive behavioural therapy, and outline approaches that healthcare professionals can use to integrate these methods into routine care.

The Potential Impact of Widespread Cessation Treatment for Smokers With Depression.

INTRODUCTION: Experts recommend integrating smoking-cessation treatments within U.S. mental health settings, but the population health benefits of doing so have not been estimated. This study simulates the impact of widespread cessation treatment for patients with depression under best-case treatment and maximum potential cessation scenarios. METHODS: Cessation interventions were simulated for U.S. adult smokers seeing a health professional for depression from 2020 to 2100. Interventions included (1) Any Treatment (behavioral counseling, pharmacological, combination) and (2) Pharmacological Treatment (including counseling), combined with increased mental health service utilization each. These were compared with a maximum potential cessation scenario where all patients with major depression quit smoking. Analyses were conducted in 2016-2020. RESULTS: Widespread uptake of Any Treatment among patients with depression would avert 32,000 deaths and result in 138,000 life-years gained by 2100; Any Treatment combined with 100% mental health service utilization would result in 53,000 and 231,000, respectively. Pharmacological Treatment would avert 125,000 deaths, with 540,000 life-years gained. Pharmacological Treatment combined with 100% mental health service utilization would result in 203,000 deaths averted and 887,000 life-years gained. Health gains under best-case treatment scenarios represent modest fractions of those projected under maximum potential cessation scenarios at current mental health service utilization levels (835,000 deaths averted, 3.73 million life-years gained) and at 100% utilization (1.11 million deaths averted, 5.07 million life years gained). CONCLUSIONS: Providing smoking-cessation treatment to patients with depression and increasing mental health service utilization would reduce the toll of tobacco on this population. These gains would be considerably larger if cessation treatments were more effective.

Smoking cessation for improving mental health.

BACKGROUND: There is a common perception that smoking generally helps people to manage stress, and may be a form of 'self-medication' in people with mental health conditions. However, there are biologically plausible reasons why smoking may worsen mental health through neuroadaptations arising from chronic smoking, leading to frequent nicotine withdrawal symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression, irritability), in which case smoking cessation may help to improve rather than worsen mental health. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between tobacco smoking cessation and change in mental health. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from 14 April 2012 to 07 January 2020. These were updated searches of a previously-conducted non-Cochrane review where searches were conducted from database inception to 13 April 2012.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled before-after studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed by smoking status at follow-up, and longitudinal cohort studies. In order to be eligible for inclusion studies had to recruit adults who smoked tobacco, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. They also had to measure a mental health outcome at baseline and at least six weeks later. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcomes were change in depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms or mixed anxiety and depression symptoms between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes  included change in symptoms of stress, psychological quality of life, positive affect, and social impact or social quality of life, as well as new incidence of depression, anxiety, or mixed anxiety and depression disorders. We assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using a modified ROBINS-I tool.  For change in mental health outcomes, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in change in mental health from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For the incidence of psychological disorders, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using I2. We conducted subgroup analyses to investigate any differences in associations between sub-populations, i.e. unselected people with mental illness, people with physical chronic diseases. We assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes (depression, anxiety, and mixed depression and anxiety) and our secondary social impact outcome using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias, magnitude of the effect, the influence of all plausible residual confounding, the presence of a dose-response gradient). MAIN RESULTS: We included 102 studies representing over 169,500 participants. Sixty-two of these were identified in the updated search for this review and 40 were included in the original version of the review.  Sixty-three studies provided data on change in mental health, 10 were included in meta-analyses of incidence of mental health disorders, and 31 were synthesised narratively.  For all primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in mental health symptoms compared with continuing to smoke: anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13; 15 studies, 3141 participants; I2 = 69%; low-certainty evidence); depression symptoms: (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.21; 34 studies, 7156 participants; I2 = 69%' very low-certainty evidence);  mixed anxiety and depression symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.22; 8 studies, 2829 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence).  These findings were robust to preplanned sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analysis generally did not produce evidence of differences in the effect size among subpopulations or based on methodological characteristics. All studies were deemed to be at serious risk of bias due to possible time-varying confounding, and three studies measuring depression symptoms were judged to be at critical risk of bias overall. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for anxiety as low, for depression as very low, and for mixed anxiety and depression as moderate. For the secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in symptoms of stress (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.04; 4 studies, 1792 participants; I2 = 50%), positive affect (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.33; 13 studies, 4880 participants; I2 = 75%), and psychological quality of life (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 19 studies, 18,034 participants; I2 = 42%). There was also evidence that smoking cessation was not associated with a reduction in social quality of life, with the confidence interval incorporating the possibility of a small improvement (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 9 studies, 14,673 participants; I2 = 0%). The incidence of new mixed anxiety and depression was lower in people who stopped smoking compared with those who continued (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 3 studies, 8685 participants; I2 = 57%), as was the incidence of anxiety disorder (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; 2 studies, 2293 participants; I2 = 46%). We deemed it inappropriate to present a pooled estimate for the incidence of new cases of clinical depression, as there was high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 87%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these data provide evidence that mental health does not worsen as a result of quitting smoking, and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with small to moderate improvements in mental health.  These improvements are seen in both unselected samples and in subpopulations, including people diagnosed with mental health conditions. Additional studies that use more advanced methods to overcome time-varying confounding would strengthen the evidence in this area.

Views about integrating smoking cessation treatment within psychological services for patients with common mental illness: A multi-perspective qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking rates are significantly higher in people with common mental illness compared to those without. Smoking cessation treatment could be offered as part of usual outpatient psychological care, but currently is not. OBJECTIVE: To understand patient and health care professionals' views about integrating smoking cessation treatment into outpatient psychological services for common mental illness. DESIGN: Qualitative in-depth interviews, with thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) psychological wellbeing practitioners (PWPs), six IAPT patients, and six stop smoking advisors were recruited from English smoking cessation, and IAPT services. RESULTS: Patients reported psychological benefits from smoking, and also described smoking as a form of self-harm. Stop smoking advisors displayed therapeutic pessimism and stigmatizing attitudes towards helping people with mental illness to quit smoking. PWPs have positive attitudes towards smoking cessation treatment for people with common mental illness. PWPs and patients accept evidence that smoking tobacco may harm mental health, and quitting might benefit mental health. PWPs report expertise in helping people with common mental illness to make behavioural changes in the face of mood disturbances and low motivation. PWPs felt confident in offering smoking cessation treatments to patients, but suggested a caseload reduction may be required to deliver smoking cessation support in IAPT. CONCLUSIONS: IAPT appears to be a natural environment for smoking cessation treatment. PWPs may need additional training, and a caseload reduction. Integration of smoking cessation treatment into IAPT services should be tested in a pilot and feasibility study. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Service users and members of the public were involved in study design and interpretation of data.

Risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events following treatment with varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink: a case-cross-over study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) are the most commonly used medications to quit smoking. Given their widespread use, monitoring adverse risks remains important. This study aimed to estimate the neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular risks associated with varenicline and NRT as used in routine UK care. DESIGN: Case-cross-over study. SETTING: UK-based electronic primary care records in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2006 to 2015 linked to hospital and mortality data sets. PARTICIPANTS: Adult smokers (n =282,429) observed during periods when exposed and not exposed to either varenicline or NRT. MEASUREMENTS: Main outcomes included suicide, self-harm, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death and cause-specific death [MI, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. In primary analyses, conditional logistic regression was used to compare the chance of varenicline or NRT exposure during the risk period (90 days prior to the event) with the chance of exposure during an earlier single reference period (91-180 days prior to the event) or multiple 90-day reference periods to increase statistical power. FINDINGS: In the primary analyses, findings were inconclusive for the associations between varenicline and the main outcomes using a single reference period, while NRT was associated with MI [odds ratio (OR) = 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18-1.67]. Using multiple reference periods, varenicline was associated with an increased risk of self-harm (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.12-1.56) and suicide (OR = 3.56, 95% CI = 1.32-9.60) but a reduction in all-cause death (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.93). NRT was associated with MI (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.36-1.74), self-harm (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.18-1.44) and deaths from MI (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.11-2.10), COPD (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.14-1.56) and all causes (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.18-1.40) when using multiple reference periods. CONCLUSIONS: There appear to be positive associations between (1) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and myocardial infarction, death and risk of self-harm and (2) varenicline and increased risk of self-harm and suicide, as well as a negative association between varenicline and all-cause death. The associations may not be causal. They may reflect health changes at the time of smoking cessation (nicotine replacement therapy is prescribed for people with cardiac problems) or be associated with quit attempts (exposure to both medicines was associated with self-harm).

Modeling smoking-attributable mortality among adults with major depression in the United States.

Tobacco-related health disparities disproportionately affect smokers with major depression (MD). Although tobacco simulation models have been applied to general populations, to date they have not considered populations with a comorbid mental health condition. We developed and calibrated a simulation model of smoking and MD comorbidity for the US adult population using the 2005-2018 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. We use this model to evaluate trends in smoking prevalence, smoking-attributable mortality and life-years lost among adults with MD, and changes in smoking prevalence by mental health status from 2018 to 2060. The model integrates known interaction effects between smoking initiation and cessation, and MD onset and recurrence. We show that from 2018 to 2060, smoking prevalence will continue declining among those with current MD. In the absence of intervention, people with MD will be increasingly disproportionately affected by smoking compared to the general population; our model shows that the smoking prevalence ratio between those with current MD and those without a history of MD increases from 1.54 to 2.42 for men and from 1.81 to 2.73 for women during this time period. From 2018 to 2060, approximately 484,000 smoking-attributable deaths will occur among adults with current MD, leading to 11.3 million life-years lost. Ambitious tobacco control efforts could alter this trajectory. With aggressive public health efforts, up to 264,000 of those premature deaths could be avoided, translating into 7.5 million life years gained. This model can compare the relative health gains across different intervention strategies for smokers with MD.

Varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: an observational study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the leading avoidable cause of illness and premature mortality. The first-line treatments for smoking cessation are nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline. Meta-analyses of experimental studies have shown that participants allocated to the varenicline group were 1.57 times (95% confidence interval 1.29 to 1.91 times) as likely to be abstinent 6 months after treatment as those allocated to the nicotine replacement therapy group. However, there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of varenicline when prescribed in primary care. We investigated the effectiveness and rate of adverse events of these medicines in the general population. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of prescribing varenicline on smoking cessation rates and health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Clinical Practice Research Datalink. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study using electronic medical records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We extracted data on all patients who were prescribed varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy after 1 September 2006 who were aged ≥ 18 years. We investigated the effects of varenicline on smoking cessation, all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality and hospitalisation for: (1) chronic lung disease, (2) lung cancer, (3) coronary heart disease, (4) pneumonia, (5) cerebrovascular disease, (6) diabetes, and (7) external causes; primary care diagnosis of myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or prescription for anxiety; weight in kg; general practitioner and hospital attendance. Our primary outcome was smoking cessation 2 years after the first prescription. We investigated the baseline differences between patients prescribed varenicline and patients prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. We report results using multivariable-adjusted, propensity score and instrumental variable regression. Finally, we developed methods to assess the relative bias of the different statistical methods we used. RESULTS: People prescribed varenicline were healthier at baseline than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy in almost all characteristics, which highlighted the potential for residual confounding. Our instrumental variable analysis results found little evidence that patients prescribed varenicline had lower mortality 2 years after their first prescription (risk difference 0.67, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to 1.46) than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. They had similar rates of all-cause hospitalisation, incident primary care diagnoses of myocardial infarction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. People prescribed varenicline subsequently attended primary care less frequently. Patients prescribed varenicline were more likely (odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.42 to 1.50) to be abstinent 6 months after treatment than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy when estimated using multivariable-adjusted for baseline covariates. Patients from more deprived areas were less likely to be prescribed varenicline. However, varenicline had similar effectiveness for these groups. CONCLUSION: Patients prescribed varenicline in primary care were more likely to quit smoking than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy, but there was little evidence that they had lower rates of mortality or morbidity in the 4 years following the first prescription. There was little evidence of heterogeneity in effectiveness across the population. FUTURE WORK: Future research should investigate the decline in prescribing of smoking cessation products; develop an optimal treatment algorithm for smoking cessation; use methods for using instruments with survival outcomes; and develop methods for comparing multivariable-adjusted and instrumental variable estimates. LIMITATIONS: Not all of our code lists were validated, body mass index and Index of Multiple Deprivation had missing values, our results may suffer from residual confounding, and we had no information on treatment adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as NCT02681848. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Smoking is the number one avoidable cause of ill health and death. Experiments suggest that more smokers will quit after being given the drug varenicline than with any other smoking cessation treatment. However, most of the experiments used to license varenicline had a relatively short follow-up (< 1 year) and did not necessarily recruit participants who were representative of smokers seen in a general practice in the UK, who tend to be older, are sicker and more likely to have neuropsychiatric illnesses. In this study, we investigated the outcomes of 287,079 patients prescribed varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. nicotine patches and gum). We followed each patient for up to 4 years after they received their prescriptions and matched their data to information on deaths from the Office for National Statistics and hospital admissions. We investigated how often these patients subsequently attended their general practitioner, and how often they received a diagnosis of myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression or anxiety in primary care. We found that patients who were prescribed varenicline were much more likely to quit smoking up to 4 years after they received treatment and subsequently attended their general practitioner less frequently. These findings were robust across the three different analysis methods we used. We also found that patients prescribed varenicline were much less likely to be ill or to die than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. However, these results may be because the patients who were prescribed varenicline were much healthier before they received the prescription. Therefore, these differences in health are unlikely to be caused by taking varenicline or quitting smoking. In conclusion, varenicline helped patients quit smoking, but there was little causal evidence that prescribing patients varenicline causally reduced rates of mortality or morbidity compared with prescribing nicotine replacement therapy.

Evidence for causal effects of lifetime smoking on risk for depression and schizophrenia: a Mendelian randomisation study.

BACKGROUND: Smoking prevalence is higher amongst individuals with schizophrenia and depression compared with the general population. Mendelian randomisation (MR) can examine whether this association is causal using genetic variants identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). METHODS: We conducted two-sample MR to explore the bi-directional effects of smoking on schizophrenia and depression. For smoking behaviour, we used (1) smoking initiation GWAS from the GSCAN consortium and (2) we conducted our own GWAS of lifetime smoking behaviour (which captures smoking duration, heaviness and cessation) in a sample of 462690 individuals from the UK Biobank. We validated this instrument using positive control outcomes (e.g. lung cancer). For schizophrenia and depression we used GWAS from the PGC consortium. RESULTS: There was strong evidence to suggest smoking is a risk factor for both schizophrenia (odds ratio (OR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67-3.08, p < 0.001) and depression (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.71-2.32, p < 0.001). Results were consistent across both lifetime smoking and smoking initiation. We found some evidence that genetic liability to depression increases smoking (ß = 0.091, 95% CI 0.027-0.155, p = 0.005) but evidence was mixed for schizophrenia (ß = 0.022, 95% CI 0.005-0.038, p = 0.009) with very weak evidence for an effect on smoking initiation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the association between smoking, schizophrenia and depression is due, at least in part, to a causal effect of smoking, providing further evidence for the detrimental consequences of smoking on mental health.

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.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy in people with neurodevelopmental disorders: A prospective cohort study.

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of varenicline versus NRT for smoking cessation in people with neurodevelopmental disorders, compared to those without, at up to four years after exposure. We analysed electronic medical records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink using three different statistical approaches: multivariable logistic regression, propensity score matching (PSM), and instrumental variable analysis. Exposure was prescription of varenicline versus NRT and the primary outcome was smoking cessation at 2-years. We included 235,314 people aged 18 and above with eligible smoking cessation prescriptions in the effectiveness analysis. Smokers with neurodevelopmental disorders were 48% less likely (95% confidence interval: 42%, 54%) to be prescribed varenicline than NRT, compared to smokers without neurodevelopmental disorders. At 2-year follow-up, smokers with neurodevelopmental disorders prescribed varenicline were 38% more likely to quit smoking (95% confidence interval: 6%, 78%). Similar results were obtained using PSM and instrumental variable analyses. There was little evidence showing that varenicline increased the likelihood of mental health related adverse events in people with neurodevelopmental disorders. Varenicline is less likely to be prescribed to people with neurodevelopmental disorders despite results suggesting it is more effective than NRT and little evidence of increased likelihood of mental health related adverse events.