Do tobacco regulatory and economic factors influence smoking cessation outcomes? A post-hoc analysis of the multinational EAGLES randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: We previously reported global regional differences in smoking cessation outcomes, with smokers of US origin having lower quit rates than smokers from some other countries. This post-hoc analysis examined global regional differences in individual-level and country-level epidemiological, economic and tobacco regulatory factors that may affect cessation outcomes. METHODS: EAGLES (Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study) was a randomised controlled trial that evaluated first-line cessation medications and placebo in 8144 smokers with and without psychiatric disorders from 16 countries across seven regions. Generalised linear and stepwise logistic regression models that considered pharmacotherapy treatment, psychiatric diagnoses, traditional individual-level predictors (eg, demographic and smoking characteristics) and country-specific smoking prevalence rates, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, relative cigarette cost and WHO-derived MPOWER scores were used to predict 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of treatment. RESULTS: In addition to several traditional predictors, three of four country-level variables predicted short-term abstinence: GDP (0.54 (95% CI 0.47, 0.63)), cigarette relative income price (0.62 (95% CI 0.53, 0.72)) and MPOWER score (1.03 (95% CI 1.01, 1.06)). Quit rates varied across regions (22.0% in Australasia to 55.9% in Mexico). With northern North America (USA and Canada) as the referent, the likelihood of achieving short-term abstinence was significantly higher in Western Europe (OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.14, 1.61)), but significantly lower in Eastern Europe (0.39 (95% CI 0.22, 0.69)) and South America (0.17 (95% CI 0.08, 0.35)). CONCLUSIONS: Increased tobacco regulation was associated with enhanced quitting among participants in the EAGLES trial. Paradoxically, lower GDP, and more affordable cigarette pricing relative to a country's GDP, were also associated with higher odds of quitting. Geographical region was also a significant independent predictor. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01456936.

In persons smoking after 6 wk of varenicline or combined NRT, increasing dose or switching combined NRT to varenicline increased cessation.

SOURCE CITATION: Cinciripini PM, Green CE, Shete S, et al. Smoking cessation after initial treatment failure with varenicline or nicotine replacement: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2024;331:1722-1731. 38696203.

Public Health Impact of FDA's Request for Additional Safety Data on Cytisine for Tobacco Cessation.

Importance: No new tobacco cessation medication has been licensed in the US since 2006. Cytisine, a plant-based partial agonist of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, has demonstrated safety and efficacy in several randomized clinical trials and is currently available in many countries. However, the drug is not commercially available in the US. A New Drug Application to license cytisine as a smoking cessation medication in the US is being prepared for review by the US Food and Drug Administration, whose request for additional safety data will delay submission of the application by approximately 1 year. Objective: To project the potential public health impact of cytisine, and delays in its availability, as a smoking cessation aid in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mathematical model estimated life expectancy gains from smoking cessation for people aged 18 to 99 years in the US, reflecting the civilian, noninstitutionalized population. The model also accounted for cytisine uptake and effectiveness, as well as potential relapse among people who stop smoking. Exposure: Cytisine availability as a tobacco cessation treatment immediately or after 1 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the number of adults able to stop smoking and sustain long-term abstinence and aggregate life-years gained. Results: The base case includes an estimated 29.4 million US civilian noninstitutionalized adults who smoke cigarettes (age distribution, 18-24 years: 5.5%; 25-44 years: 37.3%; 45-64 years: 41.8%; ≥65 years: 15.5%). With a conservative assumption that 3.8% of these individuals would use cytisine in the first year of availability, immediate cytisine availability could lead 71 000 more people to quit smoking over 1 year and maintain long-term abstinence. This would produce more than 500 000 additional life-years compared to the status quo in which cytisine is unavailable and fewer people stop smoking. Each additional year of delay in the availability of cytisine might reduce population-level life expectancy by 10 000 years. The model results were most sensitive to changes in cytisine uptake and effectiveness. Conclusions and Relevance: Smoking cessation generates large gains in life expectancy. This mathematical model demonstrated that immediate cytisine availability, even if used successfully by only a small fraction of people who smoke, could produce major public health benefits. Given the need for new tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy options, the magnitude of cytisine's potential public health benefits, and the morbidity and mortality associated with delay in its availability, a timely review of cytisine for approval in the US is warranted.

Mental health related adverse events of cytisine and varenicline in smokers with and without mental health disorders: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the adverse events (AEs) of cytisine versus varenicline among individuals with mental health disorders (MHDs), highlighting the necessity for further exploration to inform clinical practice. This secondary analysis of clinical trial data aimed to investigate the effect of varenicline vs. cytisine regarding mental-health-related AEs (MH-related AEs) on smokers with and without MHDs. METHODS: Australian daily smokers interested in quitting were randomised to varenicline (84 days) or cytisine (25 days) and categorised by self-reported MHD diagnosis or treatment in the past year (MHD or non-MHD groups). Treatment adherence was assessed by self-reported number of doses taken during the active treatment phase via two check-in calls (at one month), while AEs were evaluated through four phone interviews: two check-in calls (one month) and follow-up calls at four and seven months. Logistic regression analysis compared MH-related AEs between groups, including only participants taking at least one dose. RESULTS: Of 1452 smokers 246 reported MHDs, 725 received cytisine and 727 received varenicline. Median number of doses taken was comparable between MHD (34 cytisine and 12 varenicline) and non-MHD (33 cytisine and 13 varenicline) groups. MH-related AEs were: 14.1 % (n = 30) in MHD (12.5 % in cytisine and 15.4 % in varenicline), and 11.8 % (n = 126) in non-MHD group (10.9 % in cytisine and 13.7 % in varenicline). No significant difference in MH-related AE occurrence was identified between medication groups (aOR=0.96, 95 % CI 0.4 to 2.2, p-value = 0.94). CONCLUSION: Comparable MH-related AEs were observed between smokers with and without MHDs, suggesting that cytisine, like varenicline, may be well-tolerated by those with MHDs. However, larger clinical trials focused on MH-related AEs are needed for more conclusive evidence.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among adults: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: This overview of reviews aims to identify evidence on the benefits (i.e. tobacco use abstinence and reduction in smoking frequency) and harms (i.e. possible adverse events/outcomes) of smoking cessation interventions among adults aged 18 years and older. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the CADTH Health Technology Assessment Database and several other websites for grey literature. Searches were conducted on November 12, 2018, updated on September 24, 2020, with publication years 2008 to 2020. Two reviewers independently performed title-abstract and full-text screening considering pre-determined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessments were initially completed by two reviewers independently (i.e. 73% of included studies (n = 22)) using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR 2), and the remainder done by one reviewer and verified by another due to resources and feasibility. The application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was performed by one independent reviewer and verified by another. RESULTS: A total of 22 Cochrane systematic reviews evaluating the impact of smoking cessation interventions on outcomes such as tobacco use abstinence, reduction in smoking frequency, quality of life and possible adverse events were included. Pharmaceutical (i.e. varenicline, cytisine, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion) and behavioural interventions (i.e. physician advice, non-tailored print-based self-help materials, stage-based individual counselling, etc.) showed to have increased smoking cessation; whereas, data for mobile phone-based interventions including text messaging, hypnotherapy, acupuncture, continuous auricular stimulation, laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe), interactive voice response systems and other combination treatments were unclear. Considering harms related to smoking cessation interventions, small/mild harms (i.e. increased palpitations, chest pain, nausea, insomnia, headache) were observed following NRT, varenicline and cytisine use. There were no data on harms related to behavioural therapies (i.e. individual or group counselling self-help materials, internet interventions), combination therapies or other therapies (i.e. laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, SAMe). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that pharmacological and behavioural interventions may help the general smoking population quit smoking with observed small/mild harms following NRT or varenicline. Consequently, evidence regarding ideal intervention strategies and the long-term impact of these interventions for preventing smoking was unclear. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018099691.

Choice of smoking cessation products among people with substance use problems in the US: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study Wave 6.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare past 12-month use of cigarette smoking cessation aids (e.g., Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cessation products or e-cigarettes for smoking cessation) among people with substance use problems (PWSUPs) who currently smoke to people without substance use problems (SUPs) who currently smoke cigarettes in a nationally representative US sample. METHODS: We used the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Wave 6 Study [n = 30,516]. Our sample comprised adult (18+) established cigarette smokers (100+ lifetime-sticks with daily/non-daily use) [n = 5,895]. The independent variable was SUP status (no, moderate, and high). The dependent variables were past-year use of: nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), cessation medications [i.e., varenicline or bupropion], or e-cigarettes [for cigarette cessation and reduction]. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models for each dependent variable examined the associations between SUP status and each cessation aid, adjusting for cigarette dependence, daily cigarette smoking, and demographic factors. RESULTS: Among people who smoke, a higher proportion of respondents with high SUP severity used NRTs, cessation medications, and e-cigarettes for cigarette cessation, respectively (12.3%, 8.4%, 15.7%), compared to those with no/low SUP severity (9.8%, 6.0%, 8.9%). In the multivariable models, respondents with high SUPs had 63% (95% CI:1.16-2.29) higher odds of using e-cigarettes for cessation than those without SUPs. No significant differences were seen between high (vs. no/low SUPs) in the past-year use of NRTs and cessation medications. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that cigarette smokers with high SUPs had higher odds of using e-cigarettes for cessation and reduction compared to smokers without SUPs.

The trajectory of smoking cessation after treatment and its related factors in Taiwan.

Smoking has multiple negative effects on health; therefore, the Taiwanese government provides smoking cessation clinics to smokers. This study aimed to explore the trajectory of smoking cessation after smokers received treatment and the variables related to different trajectories. A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted, in which 735 adult smokers who received smoking cessation medications were recruited. The participants' demographic characteristics, chronic diseases, smoking characteristics, and cigarette dependence were collected from chart review. The amount of smoking was collected at baseline, and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment. The Proc Traj procedure for group-based modeling and multinomial logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Three trajectories were identified: early quitters (28.03%), late quitters (11.43%) and reducers (60.54%). Compared with early quitters, reducers were younger and had a higher probability of severe cigarette dependence. Compared with early quitters, late quitters had a higher number of taking smoking cessation medications. The findings revealed that approximately 60% of participants who received smoking cessation treatment could not completely quit smoking, and that age, number of medications taken, and cigarette dependence were significant predictors of different trajectories.

Electronic Cigarettes vs Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Little is known about the relative effectiveness of nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes (ECs) compared with varenicline as smoking cessation aids. Objective: To determine the relative effectiveness of ECs in smoking cessation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized placebo-controlled single-center trial was conducted in northern Finland. Participants aged 25 to 75 years who smoked daily and had volunteered to quit smoking were recruited from August 1, 2018, to February 20, 2020, via local media. The trial included 52 weeks of follow-up. All data analyses were conducted from September 1, 2022, to January 15, 2024. The participants, study nurses, and researchers were masked to group assignment. Intervention: The participants were assigned by block randomization to receive 18 mg/mL of nicotine-containing ECs together with placebo tablets, varenicline with standard dosing together with nicotine-free ECs, or placebo tablets together with nicotine-free ECs, all combined with a motivational interview, with the intervention phase lasting for 12 weeks. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day conventional cigarette smoking abstinence as confirmed by the exhaled carbon monoxide level on week 26. The analysis followed the intent-to-treat principle. Results: Of the 561 recruited participants, 458 (81.6%) eligible participants (257 women [56%]; 201 men [44%]; mean [SD] age, 51 [11.6] years) were randomized. The primary outcome occurred in 61 of 152 participants (40.4%) in the EC group, 67 of 153 (43.8%) in the varenicline group, and 30 of 153 (19.7%) in the placebo group (P < .001). In the pairwise comparison, placebo differed statistically significantly from ECs (risk difference [RD], 20.7%; 95% CI, 10.4-30.4; P < .001) and varenicline (RD, 24.1%; 95% CI, 13.7-33.7; P < .001), but the difference was statistically insignificant between ECs and varenicline (RD, 3.4%; 95% CI, -7.6 to 14.3; P = .56). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: This randomized clinical trial found that varenicline and nicotine-containing ECs were both effective in helping individuals in quitting smoking conventional cigarettes for up to 6 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03235505.

Smoking cessation in the management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): narrative review and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The percentage of smokers who develop COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) peaks at 40-50% in most recent publications. SUMMARY: Tobacco smoke remains the main cause of COPD, though smoking-related limitation of the flow is rather subjective. For patients who keep on smoking, general practitioners (GPs) and pulmonologists should be able to offer smoking cessation programs as an important part of COPD treatment. This narrative article aims to provide the scientific basis to help healthcare professionals develop this therapy; with this aim in mind, the authors have analyzed the most recent literature. KEY MESSAGES: Only 3% of smokers who try to quit without availing themselves of any support succeed. Effective smoking cessation methods are counselling and pharmacotherapy, which, combined together, are credited with a 24% success rate. Although there are no therapeutic novelties with strong scientific evidence for smoking cessation, it is however advisable to keep the literature updated to new devices and new digital therapies.

The efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological monotherapies and e-cigarette on smoking cessation: a systemic review and network meta-analysis.

Background and aims: Several pharmacological interventions, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion, have been approved for clinical use of smoking cessation. E-cigarettes (EC) are increasingly explored by many RCTs for their potentiality in smoking cessation. In addition, some RCTs are attempting to explore new drugs for smoking cessation, such as cytisine. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to investigate how these drugs and e-cigarettes compare regarding their efficacy and acceptability. Materials and methods: This systematic review and NMA searched all clinical studies on smoking cessation using pharmacological monotherapies or e-cigarettes published from January 2011 to May 2022 using MEDLINE, COCHRANE Library, and PsychINFO databases. NRTs were divided into transdermal (TDN) and oronasal nicotine (ONN) by administrative routes, thus 7 network nodes were set up for direct and indirect comparison. Two different indicators measured the efficacy: prevalent and continuous smoking abstinence. The drop-out rates measured the acceptability. Results: The final 40 clinical studies included in this study comprised 77 study cohorts and 25,889 participants. Varenicline is more effective intervention to assist in smoking cessation during 16-32 weeks follow-up, and is very likely to prompt dropout. Cytisine shows more effectiveness in continuous smoking cessation but may also lead to dropout. E-cigarettes and oronasal nicotine are more effective than no treatment in encouraging prevalent abstinence, but least likely to prompt dropout. Finally, transdermal nicotine delivery is more effective than no treatment in continuous abstinence, with neither significant effect on prevalent abstinence nor dropout rate. Conclusion: This review suggested and agreed that Varenicline, Cytisine and transdermal nicotine delivery, as smoking cessation intervention, have advantages and disadvantages. However, we had to have reservations about e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking in adolescents.

Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy Use in Pregnancy.

Importance: Significant evidence gaps exist regarding the safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy, especially for the risk of congenital malformations. Consequently, professional bodies advise against the use of varenicline and bupropion and recommend caution with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Contemporary estimates of the use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy are lacking. Objective: To quantify the proportion of individuals using prescribed smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy and during the first trimester specifically, in 4 countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked birth records, hospital admission records, and dispensing records of prescribed medications from all pregnancies resulting in birth between 2015 and 2020 in New South Wales, Australia; New Zealand; Norway; and Sweden. Data analyses were conducted in October and November 2023. Exposure: Prescribed smoking cessation pharmacotherapy use (varenicline, NRT, and bupropion) during pregnancy was defined as days' supply overlapping the period from date of conception to childbirth. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of use among all pregnancies and pregnancies with maternal smoking were calculated. Among women who used a pharmacotherapy, the proportion of women with use during the first trimester of pregnancy was also calculated. Results: Among 1 700 638 pregnancies in 4 countries, 138 033 (8.1%) had maternal smoking and 729 498 (42.9%) were younger than 30 years. The prevalences ranged from 0.02% to 0.14% for varenicline, less than 0.01% to 1.86% for prescribed NRT, and less than 0.01% to 0.07% for bupropion. Among pregnant individuals who smoked, use of pharmacotherapies was up to 10 times higher, with maximum prevalences of 1.25% for varenicline in New South Wales, 11.39% for NRT in New Zealand, and 0.39% for bupropion in New Zealand. Use in the first trimester occurred among more than 90% of individuals using varenicline, approximately 60% among those using NRT, and 80% to 90% among those using bupropion. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of pregnant individuals in 4 high-income countries, the low prevalence of varenicline and bupropion use during pregnancy and higher prevalence of NRT use aligned with current clinical guidelines. As most use occurred in the first trimester, there is a need for evidence on the risk of congenital malformations for these medications.

Varenicline and Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smokers Admitted to Hospitals: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Varenicline is the most effective sole pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. If used in combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), cessation rates may be further improved, but the efficacy and safety of the combination need to be evaluated. Objective: To examine whether hospitalized smokers treated with varenicline and NRT lozenges achieve higher prolonged smoking abstinence rates compared with those treated with varenicline alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in adult medical or surgical inpatients of 5 Australian public hospitals with a history of smoking 10 cigarettes or more per day, interested in quitting, and available for 12-month follow-up between May 1, 2019, and May 1, 2021 (final 12-month data collection in May 2022). Data analysis was performed from June 1 to August 30, 2023. Interventions: A 12-week varenicline regimen was initiated during hospitalization at standard doses in all participants. Participants were randomized to additionally use NRT (2 mg) or placebo lozenges if there was an urge to smoke. Behavioral support (Quitline) was offered to all participants. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was biochemically verified sustained abstinence at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-reported prolonged abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence (3, 6, and 12 months), and medicine-related adverse events. Results: A total of 320 participants (mean [SD] age, 52.5 [12.1] years; 183 [57.2%] male) were randomized. The conduct of biochemical verification was affected by COVID-19 restrictions; consequently, the biochemically verified abstinence in the intervention vs control arms (18 [11.4%] vs 16 [10.1%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56-2.33) did not support the combination therapy. The secondary outcomes in the intervention vs control arms of 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months (54 [34.2%] vs 37 [23.4%]; OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.04-2.80), prolonged abstinence at 12 months (47 [29.9%] vs 30 [19.1%]; OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.05-3.00), and 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12-months (48 [30.6%] vs 31 [19.7%]; OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.07-2.99) significantly improved with the combination therapy. The self-reported 6-month prolonged abstinence (61 [38.6%] vs 47 [29.7%]; OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.93-2.39) favored the combination therapy but was not statistically significant. Medicine-related adverse events were similar in the 2 groups (102 [74.5%] in the intervention group vs 86 [68.3%] in the control group). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of the combination of varenicline and NRT lozenges in hospitalized adult daily smokers, the combination treatment improved self-reported abstinence compared with varenicline alone, without compromising safety, but it did not improve biochemically validated abstinence. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12618001792213.

Smoking Cessation After Initial Treatment Failure With Varenicline or Nicotine Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Most people who smoke do not quit on their initial attempt. Objective: To determine the best subsequent strategy for nonabstinence following initial treatment with varenicline or combined nicotine replacement therapy (CNRT). Design, Setting, and Participants: Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial, 490 volunteers were randomized to receive 6 weeks of varenicline or CNRT. After 6 weeks, nonabstainers were rerandomized to continue, switch, or increase medication dosage for 6 additional weeks. The study was conducted from June 2015 through October 2019 in a Texas tobacco treatment clinic. Interventions: The initial treatment was 2 mg/d of varenicline or the combined replacement therapy of a 21-mg patch plus 2-mg lozenge. The rerandomized participants either continued with their initial therapies, switched between varenicline and CNRT, or increased dosages either to 3-mg or more of varenicline or to a 42-mg patch and lozenges. All received weekly brief counseling. Main Outcomes and Measures: Biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of treatment at 12 weeks. Results: The 490 randomized participants (210 female [43%], 287 non-Hispanic White [58%], mean age, 48.1 years) smoked an average of 20 cigarettes per day. After the first phase, 54 participants in the CNRT group were abstinent and continued their therapy; of the 191 who were not abstinent, 151 were rerandomized, and the 40 who did not return for rerandomization were assigned to continue their initial CNRT condition in phase 2. The end-of-treatment abstinence rate for the 191 phase 1 nonabstainers was 8% (95% credible interval [CrI], 6% to 10%) for the 90 (47%) who continued at the dosage condition, 14% (CrI, 10% to 18%) for the 50 (33%) who increased their dosage, and 14% (95% CrI, 10% to 18%) for the 51 (34%) who switched to varenicline (absolute risk difference [RD], 6%; 95% CrI, 6% to 11%) with more than 99% posterior probability that either strategy conferred benefit over continuing the initial dosage. After the first phase, 88 participants in the varenicline group were abstinent and continued their therapy; of the 157 who were not abstinent, 122 were rerandomized and 35 who did not return for rerandomization were assigned to continue with the varenicline condition. The end-of-treatment abstinence rate for the 157 phase 1 nonabstainers was 20% (95% CrI, 16% to 26%) for the 39 (32%) who increased their varenicline dosage, 0 (95% CrI, 0 to 0) for the 41 (34%) who switched CNRT, and 3% (95% CrI, 1% to 4%) for the 77 (49%) who were assigned to the continued varenicline condition (absolute RD, -3%; 95% CrI, -4% to -1%) with more than 99% posterior probability that continuing varenicline at the initial dosage was worse than switching to a higher dosage. Furthermore, increasing the varenicline dosage had an absolute RD of 18% (95% CrI, 13% to 24%) and a more than 99% posterior probability of conferring benefit. The secondary outcome of continuous abstinence at 6 months indicated that only increased dosages of the CNRT and varenicline provided benefit over continuation of the initial treatment dosages. Conclusions and Relevance: For individuals who smoked but did not achieve abstinence after treatment with varenicline, increasing the dosage enhanced abstinence vs continuing, whereas for nonabstainers initially treated with CNRT, a dosage increase or switch to varenicline enhanced abstinence and may be viable rescue strategies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02271919.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Investigating disparities in smoking cessation treatment for veterans with multiple sclerosis: A national analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smoking is a risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS) development, symptom burden, decreased medication efficacy, and increased disease-related mortality. Veterans with MS (VwMS) smoke at critically high rates; however, treatment rates and possible disparities are unknown. To promote equitable treatment, we aim to investigate smoking cessation prescription practices for VwMS across social determinant factors. METHODS: We extracted data from the national Veterans Health Administration electronic health records between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2018. To derive marginal estimates of the association of MS with receipt of smoking-cessation pharmacotherapy, we used propensity score matching through the extreme gradient boosting machine learning model. VwMS who smoke were matched with veterans without MS who smoke on factors including age, race, depression, and healthcare visits. To assess the marginal association of MS with different cessation treatments, we used logistic regression and conducted stratified analyses by sex, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: The matched sample achieved a good balance across most covariates, compared to the pre-match sample. VwMS (n = 3320) had decreased odds of receiving prescriptions for nicotine patches ([Odds Ratio]OR = 0.86, p < .01), non-patch nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; OR = 0.81, p < .001), and standard practice dual NRT (OR = 0.77, p < .01), compared to matches without MS (n = 13,280). Men with MS had lower odds of receiving prescriptions for nicotine patches (OR = 0.88, p = .05), non-patch NRT (OR = 0.77, p < .001), and dual NRT (OR = 0.72, p < .001). Similarly, Black VwMS had lower odds of receiving prescriptions for patches (OR = 0.62, p < .001), non-patch NRT (OR = 0.75, p < .05), and dual NRT (OR = 0.52, p < .01). The odds of receiving prescriptions for bupropion or varenicline did not differ between VwMS and matches without MS. CONCLUSION: VwMS received significantly less smoking cessation treatment, compared to matched controls without MS, showing a critical gap in health services as VwMS are not receiving dual NRT as the standard of care. Prescription rates were especially lower for male and Black VwMS, suggesting that under-represented demographic groups outside of the white female category, most often considered as the "traditional MS" group, could be under-treated regarding smoking cessation support. This foundational work will help inform future work to promote equitable treatment and implementation of cessation interventions for people living with MS.

Feasibility of restricting e-cigarettes to prescription only for smoking cessation.

E-cigarette use among youth in Canada has risen to epidemic proportions. E-cigarettes are also moderately useful smoking cessations aids. Restricting e-cigarettes to prescription only smoking cessation aids could help limit youth's access to them while keeping them available as therapies for patients who smoke conventional cigarettes. In Canada, drugs or devices must be approved by regulatory bodies such as Health Canada in order to become licensed prescription medications. A similar situation is underway in Australia, where e-cigarettes have been restricted to prescription only. This commentary explores the feasibility of a similar regulation for e-cigarettes in Canada as prescription smoking cessation aids.

Combination Treatment With Varenicline and Nicotine Patch on Smoking Cessation Outcomes in Heavy Drinkers at 26-Week Follow-up.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: People who smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol heavily are less likely to quit smoking compared with those who do not drink heavily. The current study examined the effects of a 12-week treatment phase of combination varenicline and nicotine patch compared with placebo and nicotine patch on smoking cessation (primary outcome) and alcohol consumption (secondary outcome) in heavy drinking smokers at 26-week follow-up. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Participants were daily smokers who met heavy drinking criteria. They were randomly assigned to receive either varenicline and nicotine patch (n = 61) or placebo and nicotine patch (n = 61) for 12 weeks. At week 26, self-reports of point prevalence cigarette abstinence were biochemically confirmed, and past-month alcohol drinking days and heavy drinking days were assessed. FINDINGS/RESULTS: At week 26, smoking quit rates did not differ by treatment group (25% varenicline and 26% placebo). Relative to week 12 outcomes, week 26 quit rates significantly dropped off in the varenicline group but not in the placebo group. Alcohol drinking reductions for the whole sample that were previously observed from baseline to week 12 were sustained at week 26, although they did not differ between treatment groups. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: In heavy drinking smokers, smoking cessation success was evident in a quarter of the total sample at 3 months postmedication discontinuation. At this time, quit rates were the same between those who received varenicline and nicotine patch and those who received nicotine patch alone. Future research is warranted to examine what may aid in longer-term smoking quit rates in heavy drinking smokers.