Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes. DESIGN: Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results. SETTING: Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes. INTERVENTIONS: Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019. REVIEW METHODS: Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model. RESULTS: Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard. LIMITATIONS: Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified. CONCLUSIONS: Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK. FUTURE WORK: Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cigarette smoking is one of the main causes of early death both in the UK and worldwide. Three medicines, varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy, are licensed in the UK to help people stop smoking. E-cigarettes can also be used as a stop smoking aid. We combined information from previous studies, including clinical trials, to determine which product was the safest, most effective and best value for money for the NHS. We compared treatments that were given alone as well as treatments that were combined with others, such as combination nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline combined with nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline combined with bupropion and bupropion combined with nicotine replacement therapy. The last three combined treatments are not currently licensed in the UK for smoking cessation. We also compared different treatment doses (low, high and standard doses). We found that most treatments were more effective than placebo in helping people to quit smoking. One of the combination treatments (varenicline at standard dose combined with nicotine replacement therapy at standard dose) was the most effective at getting people to quit smoking, followed by e-cigarette at low dose, varenicline at standard dose combined with bupropion at standard dose, and e-cigarette at high dose. We also found that smokers with higher tobacco dependence and smokers treated with counselling alongside medicines achieved a higher proportion of continuous quitting. We also found evidence that the standard dose of bupropion was associated with an increased risk of serious side effects compared with placebo. There was inconclusive evidence that any of the treatments increased the risk of major cardiovascular side effects. There was some evidence that smokers who received a standard dose of varenicline had an increased risk of major neurological and psychiatric side effects compared with those receiving a standard dose of bupropion. E-cigarette at low dose, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard and varenicline standard plus bupropion standard were the best value for money interventions, but further clinical trials comparing treatments against each other are needed to increase confidence in these findings.

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.

The Impact of Residing in a Gang Territory on Adverse Birth Outcomes: Evidence from Los Angeles.

Gang violence remains an ongoing crisis in many communities in the United States. This paper assesses the potential association of gang-occupied neighborhoods with birth outcomes. Adverse birth outcomes serve as a "barometer" of population health, denoting both poor conditions for human development and portending future public health concerns. We draw upon (1) Los Angeles County Vital Statistics Birth Records (2008-2012), (2) GIS information on gang territory boundaries, (3) LA city geo-coded crime data, and (4) the 2010 U.S. Census and 2006-2010 American Community Survey. We find an association between gang-occupied neighborhoods and adverse birth outcomes; however, this association is largely explained by other neighborhood socio-demographic characteristics, crime notwithstanding. We also find that gangland neighborhoods tend to exacerbate the effects of crime for all birth outcomes, but only significantly so for small for gestational age births. Lastly, gang co-residence, crime, and other neighborhood demographics explain a substantial portion of socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in adverse birth outcomes. Gangland neighborhoods appear to be a novel contributor to both population health and health disparities. Future studies should address these relationships in a broad range of metropolitan settings, paying careful attention to causal linkages and moderating effects of gangs and crime.

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.

How do smoking cessation medicines compare with respect to their neuropsychiatric safety? A protocol for a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death in the UK and worldwide. Public health guidance recommends the use of varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as smoking cessation aids in the UK. Additionally, the first electronic cigarette has been licensed for use as a smoking cessation medicine. However, there are ongoing concerns about the safety of these medicines. We present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine how these smoking cessation medicines compare to each other with respect to their neuropsychiatric safety in adult smokers. Secondary aims include updating the evidence regarding the effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of these medicines for use in a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include randomised controlled trials and observational studies with control groups comparing monotherapy with varenicline, bupropion, NRT or electronic cigarette and combination therapies to each other, placebo or usual care. The primary composite safety outcome will be serious adverse events, defined as events that resulted in death, were life threatening, required hospitalisation or resulted in significant disability or congenital/birth defect. The preferred effectiveness outcome will be sustained smoking cessation defined as abstinence for a minimum of 6 months as determined by biochemical validation. We will include trials identified by previous reviews and search relevant databases for newly published trials as well as contacting study authors to identify unpublished information. We will conduct fixed-effect and random-effect meta-analyses for each pairwise comparison of treatments and outcome; where these estimates differ, we will consider reasons for heterogeneity, quantified using the between-study variance (τ2). For each outcome, we will construct a NMA in a Bayesian framework which will be compared with the pair-wise results, allowing us to rank treatments. The effectiveness estimates from the NMA will be entered into a probabilistic economic model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this evidence synthesis study as it involves analysis of secondary data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies. The review will make an important contribution to the knowledge base around the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines. Results will be disseminated to the general public, healthcare practitioners and clinicians, academics, industry and policy makers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016041302.

What are the effects of varenicline compared with nicotine replacement therapy on long-term smoking cessation and clinically important outcomes? Protocol for a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is a major avoidable cause of ill-health and premature death. Treatments that help patients successfully quit smoking have an important effect on health and life expectancy. Varenicline is a medication that can help smokers successfully quit smoking. However, there are concerns that it may cause adverse effects, such as increase in the occurrence of depression, self-harm and suicide and cardiovascular disease. In this study we aim to examine the effects of varenicline versus other smoking cessation pharmacotherapies on smoking cessation, health service use, all-cause and cause-specific mortality and physical and mental health conditions. METHODS: In this project we will investigate the effects of varenicline compared to nicotine replacement therapies on: (1) long-term smoking cessation and whether these effects differ by area level deprivation; and (2) the following clinically-important outcomes: rate of general practice and hospital attendance; all-cause mortality and death due to diseases of the respiratory system and cardiovascular disease; and a primary care diagnosis of respiratory illness, myocardial infarction or depression and anxiety. The study is based on a cohort of patients prescribed these smoking cessation medications from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We will use three methods to overcome confounding: multivariable adjusted Cox regression, propensity score matched Cox regression, and instrumental variable regression. The total expected sample size for analysis will be at least 180,000. Follow-up will end with the earliest of either an 'event' or censoring due to the end of registration or death. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for this study. This project has been approved by the CPRD's Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC). We will disseminate our findings via publications in international peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international conferences.

Association of socio-economic position and suicide/attempted suicide in low and middle income countries in South and South-East Asia - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Forty percent of the world's suicide deaths occur in low and middle income countries (LAMIC) in Asia. There is a recognition that social factors, such as socioeconomic position (SEP), play an important role in determining suicidal risk in high income countries, but less is known about the association in LAMIC. METHODS: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise existing evidence of the association between SEP and attempted suicide/suicide risk in LAMIC countries in South and South East Asia. Web of Science, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and article reference lists/forward citations were searched for eligible studies. Epidemiological studies reporting on the association of individual SEP with suicide and attempted suicide were included. Study quality was assessed using an adapted rating tool and a narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies from nine countries were identified; 31 different measures of SEP were reported, with education being the most frequently recorded. Most studies suggest that lower levels of SEP are associated with an increased risk of suicide/attempted suicide, though findings are not always consistent between and within countries. Over half of the studies included in this review were of moderate/low quality. The SEP risk factors with the most consistent association across studies were asset based measures (e.g. composite measures); education; measures of financial difficulty and subjective measures of financial circumstance. Several studies show a greater than threefold increased risk in lower SEP groups with the largest and most consistent association with subjective measures of financial circumstance. CONCLUSION: The current evidence suggests that lower SEP increases the likelihood of suicide/attempted suicide in LAMIC in South and South East Asia. However, the findings are severely limited by study quality; larger better quality studies are therefore needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014006521.

Estimating Gestational Age in Late Presenters to Antenatal Care in a Resource-Limited Setting on the Thai-Myanmar Border.

Estimating gestational age in resource-limited settings is prone to considerable inaccuracy because crown-rump length measured by ultrasound before 14 weeks gestation, the recommended method for estimating gestational age, is often unavailable. Judgements regarding provision of appropriate obstetric and neonatal care are dependent on accurate estimation of gestational age. We determined the accuracy of the Dubowitz Gestational Age Assessment, a population-specific symphysis-fundal height formula, and ultrasound biometry performed between 16 and 40 weeks gestation in estimating gestational age using pre-existing data from antenatal clinics of the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit on the Thai-Myanmar border, where malaria is endemic. Two cohorts of women who gave birth to live singletons were analysed: 1) 250 women who attended antenatal care between July 2001 and May 2006 and had both ultrasound crown-rump length (reference) and a Dubowitz Gestational Age Assessment; 2) 975 women attending antenatal care between April 2007 and October 2010 who had ultrasound crown-rump length, symphysis-fundal measurements, and an additional study ultrasound (biparietal diameter and head circumference) randomly scheduled between 16 and 40 weeks gestation. Mean difference in estimated newborn gestational age between methods and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were determined from linear mixed-effects models. The Dubowitz method and the symphysis-fundal height formula performed well in term newborns, but overestimated gestational age of preterms by 2.57 weeks (95% LOA: 0.49, 4.65) and 3.94 weeks (95% LOA: 2.50, 5.38), respectively. Biparietal diameter overestimated gestational age by 0.83 weeks (95% LOA: -0.93, 2.58). Head circumference underestimated gestational age by 0.39 weeks (95% LOA: -2.60, 1.82), especially if measured after 24 weeks gestation. The results of this study can be used to quantify biases associated with alternative methods for estimating gestational age in the absence of ultrasound crown-rump length to inform critical clinical judgements in this population, and as a point of reference elsewhere.