Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation.

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

Who is accessing community lateral flow device testing and why? Characteristics and motivations of individuals participating in COVID-19 community testing in two English local authority areas.

BACKGROUND: Antigen testing using lateral flow devices (LFDs) plays an important role in the management of the novel coronavirus pandemic of 2019 (COVID-19) by rapidly identifying individuals who are asymptomatically carrying high levels of the virus. By January 2021, LFD community testing sites were set up across English local authority areas to support the management and containment of regional COVID-19 cases, initially targeting essential workers unable to work from home during the national lockdown. This study aimed to examine the characteristics and motivations of individuals accessing community LFD testing across two local authority areas (LAAs) in the South West of England. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a service evaluation from December 22nd 2020 until March 15th 2021 for two LAAs. Demographic and postcode data were collected from an online test appointment booking platform and the National Health Service testing service online system, with data accessed from Public Health England. An online survey was sent to individuals who made a testing appointment at an LAA1 site using the online booking platform, consisting of 12 questions to collect data on individual's motivations for and experiences of testing. RESULTS: Data were available for individuals who completed 12,516 tests in LAA1 and 12,327 tests in LAA2. Most individuals who engaged with testing were female, working age, white, and worked as early years or education staff, health and social care staff, and supermarket or food production staff. 1249 individuals completed the survey with 60% of respondents reported getting tested for work-related reasons. Individuals first heard about LFD testing through various channels including work, media, and word of mouth, and decided to get tested based on the ease and convenience of testing, workplace communications, and to identify asymptomatic cases to help stop the spread. Most tests were completed by individuals living in less deprived areas based on national deciles of deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: While national and local COVID-19 testing strategies have evolved, community and personal LFD testing remains a crucial pillar of the testing strategy. Future studies should collect quantitative and qualitative data from residents to most effectively shape testing offers based on the needs and preferences of their population.

Using primary care databases for addiction research: An introduction and overview of strengths and weaknesses.

Primary care databases extract and combine routine data from the electronic patient records of various participating practices on a regular basis. These databases can be used for innovative and relevant addiction research, but such use requires a thorough understanding of how data were originally collected and how they need to be processed and statistically analysed to produce sound scientific evidence. The aims of this paper are therefore to (1) make a case for why primary care databases should be considered more frequently for addiction research; (2) provide an overview of how primary care databases are constructed; (3) highlight important methodological and statistical strengths and weaknesses of using primary care databases for research; and (4) give practical advice about how a researcher can get access to databases. Three major primary care databases from the UK serve as examples: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), and QResearch.

Comparative clinical effectiveness and safety of tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and electronic cigarettes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To determine how varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and electronic cigarettes compare with respect to their clinical effectiveness and safety. METHOD: Systematic reviews and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, in any setting, of varenicline, bupropion, NRT and e-cigarettes (in high, standard and low doses, alone or in combination) in adult smokers and smokeless tobacco users with follow-up duration of 24 weeks or greater (effectiveness) or any duration (safety). Nine databases were searched until 19 February 2019. Primary outcomes were sustained tobacco abstinence and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and treatment rankings and conducted meta-regression to explore covariates. RESULTS: We identified 363 trials for effectiveness and 355 for safety. Most monotherapies and combination therapies were more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence; the most effective of these, estimated with some imprecision, were varenicline standard [OR = 2.83, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 2.34-3.39] and varenicline standard + NRT standard (OR = 5.75, 95% CrI = 2.27-14.88). Estimates were higher in smokers receiving counselling than in those without and in studies with higher baseline nicotine dependence scores than in those with lower scores. Varenicline standard + NRT standard showed a high probability of being ranked best or second-best. For safety, only bupropion at standard dose increased the odds of experiencing SAEs compared with placebo (OR = 1.27, 95% CrI = 1.04-1.58), and we found no evidence of effect modification. CONCLUSIONS: Most tobacco cessation monotherapies and combination therapies are more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence, with varenicline appearing to be most effective based on current evidence. There does not appear to be strong evidence of associations between most tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and adverse events; however, the data are limited and there is a need for improved reporting of safety data.

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.

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).

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.

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.

The effects of prescribing varenicline on two-year health outcomes: an observational cohort study using electronic medical records.

AIMS: To investigate whether smokers prescribed varenicline had lower risks of serious ill-health during the 4 years following treatment compared with those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). DESIGN: Observational cohort study of electronic medical records. SETTING: A total of 370 UK general practices sampled from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 126 718 patients aged 18 and over who were issued smoking cessation prescriptions between 1 September 2006 and 31 March 2014. MEASUREMENTS: Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 2 years of first prescription as indicated by linked Office of National Statistics data. Our secondary outcomes were cause-specific mortality, all-cause, cause-specific hospitalization, primary care diagnosis of myocardial infarction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), body mass index and attendance rate to primary care within 2 years of first prescription. Risk differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by multivariable adjusted regression and propensity score matched regression. We used instrumental variable analysis to overcome residual confounding. FINDINGS: People prescribed varenicline were healthier at baseline than those prescribed NRT in almost all characteristics, highlighting the potential for residual confounding. Our instrumental variable analysis results found that people prescribed varenicline had a similar risk of mortality at 2 years [risk difference per 100 patients treated = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.11 to 1.46)] to those prescribed NRT, and there were similar rates of all-cause hospitalization, incident primary-care diagnoses of myocardial infarction and COPD. People prescribed varenicline subsequently attended primary care less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers prescribed varenicline in primary care in the United Kingdom do not appear to be less likely to die, be hospitalized or experience a myocardial infarction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during the following 2 years compared with smokers prescribed nicotine replacement therapy, but they gain more weight and attend primary care less frequently.

Interventions for the reduction of prescribed opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013. The conclusions of this review have not changed from the 2013 publication. People with chronic non-cancer pain who are prescribed and are taking opioids can have a history of long-term, high-dose opioid use without effective pain relief. In those without good pain relief, reduction of prescribed opioid dose may be the desired and shared goal of both patient and clinician. Simple, unsupervised reduction of opioid use is clinically challenging, and very difficult to achieve and maintain. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of different methods designed to achieve reduction or cessation of prescribed opioid use for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults compared to controls. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in January 2017, as well as bibliographies and citation searches of included studies. We also searched one trial registry for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing opioid users receiving an intervention with a control group receiving treatment as usual, active control, or placebo. The aim of the study had to include a treatment goal of dose reduction or cessation of opioid medication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We sought data relating to prescribed opioid use, adverse events of opioid reduction, pain, and psychological and physical function. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, however, due to the heterogeneity of studies, we were unable to combine outcomes in a meta-analysis and therefore we did not assess the evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies are new to this update, resulting in five included studies in total (278 participants). Participants were primarily women (mean age 49.63 years, SD = 11.74) with different chronic pain conditions. We judged the studies too heterogeneous to pool data in a meta-analysis, so we have summarised the results from each study qualitatively. The studies included acupuncture, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy interventions aimed at reducing opioid consumption, misuse of opioids, or maintenance of chronic pain management treatments. We found mixed results from the studies. Three of the five studies reported opioid consumption at post-treatment and follow-up. Two studies that delivered 'Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement' or 'Therapeutic Interactive Voice Response' found a significant difference between groups at post-treatment and follow-up in opioid consumption. The remaining study found reduction in opioid consumption in both treatment and control groups, and between-group differences were not significant. Three studies reported adverse events related to the study and two studies did not have study-related adverse events. We also found mixed findings for pain intensity and physical functioning. The interventions did not show between-group differences for psychological functioning across all studies. Overall, the risk of bias was mixed across studies. All studies included sample sizes of fewer than 100 and so we judged all studies as high risk of bias for that category. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for the efficacy or safety of methods for reducing prescribed opioid use in chronic pain. There is a small number of randomised controlled trials investigating opioid reduction, which means our conclusions are limited regarding the benefit of psychological, pharmacological, or other types of interventions for people with chronic pain trying to reduce their opioid consumption. The findings to date are mixed: there were reductions in opioid consumption after intervention, and often in control groups too.

The effectiveness of varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy on long-term smoking cessation in primary care: a prospective cohort study of electronic medical records.

Background: There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for long-term smoking cessation in primary care, or whether the treatment effectiveness differs by socioeconomic position (SEP). Therefore, we estimated the long-term effectiveness of varenicline versus NRT (> 2 years) on smoking cessation, and investigated whether effectiveness differs by SEP. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of electronic medical records from 654 general practices in England, within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, using three different analytical methods: multivariable logistic regression, propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses. Exposure was prescription of varenicline versus NRT, and the primary outcome was smoking cessation at 2 years' follow-up; outcome was also assessed at 3, 6, and 9 months, and at 1 and 4 years after exposure. SEP was defined using the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Results: At 2 years, 28.8% (N = 20 362/70 610) of participants prescribed varenicline and 24.3% (N = 36 268/149 526) of those prescribed NRT quit; adjusted odds ratio was 1.26 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23 to 1.29], P < 0.0001. The association persisted for up to 4 years and was consistent across all analyses. We found little evidence that the effectiveness of varenicline differed greatly by SEP. However, patients from areas of higher deprivation were less likely to be prescribed varenicline; adjusted odds ratio was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.92), P < 0.0001. Conclusions: Patients prescribed varenicline were more likely to be abstinent up to 4 years after first prescription than those prescribed NRT. In combination with other evidence, the results from this study may be used to update clinical guidelines on the use of varenicline for smoking cessation.

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.

Prevalence and patterns of antidepressant switching amongst primary care patients in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Non-response to antidepressant treatment is a substantial problem in primary care, and many patients with depression require additional second-line treatments. This study aimed to examine the prevalence and patterns of antidepressant switching in the UK, and identify associated demographic and clinical factors. METHOD: Cohort analysis of antidepressant prescribing data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a large, anonymised UK primary care database. The sample included 262,844 patients who initiated antidepressant therapy between 1 January 2005 and 31 June 2011. RESULTS: 9.3% of patients switched to a different antidepressant product, with most switches (60%) occurring within 8 weeks of the index date. The proportion switching was similar for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), tricyclic antidepressants and other antidepressants (9.3%, 9.8% and 9.2%, respectively). Most switches were to an SSRI (64.5%), and this was the preferred option regardless of initial antidepressant class. Factors predictive of switching included male gender, age, and history of self-harm and psychiatric illness. CONCLUSION: Over one in every 11 patients who initiates antidepressant therapy will switch medication, suggesting that initial antidepressant treatment has been unsatisfactory. Evidence to guide choice of second-line treatment for individual patients is currently limited. Additional research comparing different pharmacological and psychological second-line treatment strategies is required in order to inform guidelines and improve patient outcomes.

How to compare instrumental variable and conventional regression analyses using negative controls and bias plots.

There is increasing interest in the use of instrumental variable analysis to overcome unmeasured confounding in observational pharmacoepidemiological studies. This is partly because instrumental variable analyses are potentially less biased than conventional regression analyses. However, instrumental variable analyses are less precise, and regulators and clinicians find it difficult to interpret conflicting evidence from instrumental variable compared with conventional regression analyses. In this paper, we describe three techniques to assess which approach (instrumental variable versus conventional regression analyses) is least biased. These techniques are negative control outcomes, negative control populations and tests of covariate balance. We illustrate these methods using an analysis of the effects of smoking cessation therapies (varenicline) prescribed in primary care.

Influences on antidepressant prescribing trends in the UK: 1995-2011.

PURPOSE: The number of antidepressants prescribed in the UK has been increasing over the last 25 years; however, the reasons for this are not clear. This study examined trends in antidepressant prescribing in the UK between 1995 and 2011 according to age, sex, and drug class, and investigated reasons for the increase in prescribing over this period. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of antidepressant prescribing data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink: a large, anonymised, primary care database in the UK. The dataset used in this study included 138 practices, at which a total of 1,524,201 eligible patients were registered across the 17-year period. The proportion of patients who received at least one antidepressant prescription and the number of patients who started a course of antidepressants were calculated for each year of the study. We used person years (PY) at risk as the denominator. The duration of treatment for those starting antidepressants was also examined. RESULTS: 23% of patients were prescribed an antidepressant on at least one occasion over the 17-year study period. Antidepressant prescriptions rose from 61.9 per 1000 PY in 1995 to 129.9 per 1000 PY in 2011. This was largely driven by an increase in prescribing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and 'other' antidepressants. In contrast, incidence rates of those starting antidepressants remained relatively stable (1995: 21.3 per 1000 PY; 2011: 17.9 per 1000 PY). The duration of treatment increased with later starting years, with an increasing proportion of long-term use, and decrease in short-term use. CONCLUSION: The increase in antidepressant prescribing over the study period appears to be driven by an increase in long-term use of these medications.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in May 2015, although we have included a few key trials published after this date. We also searched online clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomisation procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials of cytisine (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87; low-quality evidence). One recent trial comparing cytisine with NRT in 1310 people found a benefit for cytisine at six months (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80).One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). This drug is no longer in development.We identified 39 trials that tested varenicline, 27 of which contributed to the primary analysis (varenicline versus placebo). Five of these trials also included a bupropion treatment arm. Eight trials compared varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Nine studies tested variations in varenicline dosage, and 13 tested usage in disease-specific subgroups of patients. The included studies covered 25,290 participants, 11,801 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.24 (95% CI 2.06 to 2.43; 27 trials, 12,625 people; high-quality evidence). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1266 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at six months was 1.39 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.54; 5 trials, 5877 people; high-quality evidence). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.25 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; 8 trials, 6264 people; moderate-quality evidence). Four trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The number needed to treat with varenicline for an additional beneficial outcome, based on the weighted mean control rate, is 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). The most commonly reported adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Our analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment suggests there may be a 25% increase in the chance of SAEs among people using varenicline (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49; 29 trials, 15,370 people; high-quality evidence). These events include comorbidities such as infections, cancers and injuries, and most were considered by the trialists to be unrelated to the treatments. There is also evidence of higher losses to follow-up in the control groups compared with the intervention groups, leading to a likely underascertainment of the true rate of SAEs among the controls. Early concerns about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation led to the addition of a boxed warning to the labelling in 2008. However, subsequent observational cohort studies and meta-analyses have not confirmed these fears, and the findings of the EAGLES trial do not support a causal link between varenicline and neuropsychiatric disorders, including suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. The evidence is not conclusive, however, in people with past or current psychiatric disorders. Concerns have also been raised that varenicline may slightly increase cardiovascular events in people already at increased risk of those illnesses. Current evidence neither supports nor refutes such an association, but we await the findings of the CATS trial, which should establish whether or not this is a valid concern. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and three-fold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion or with NRT. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The most frequently recorded adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Early reports of possible links to suicidal ideation and behaviour have not been confirmed by current research.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support.

Railway suicide in England and Wales 2000-2013: a time-trends analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, the "Tackling Suicide on the Railways" programme was launched as a joint initiative among Network Rail, the Samaritans and other key organisations such as the British Transport Police and train operators to achieve a 20% reduction in railway suicides from 2010 to 2015 in Great Britain. We report the most recent age and sex specific trends in railway suicide in England and Wales from 2000 to 2013 and examine whether the initiative's target reduction in railway suicides is likely to be achieved. METHODS: Population data and suicide mortality data (all methods combined and railway) for England and Wales were obtained from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and used to calculate age and gender specific rates for deaths registered from 2000 to 2013. Data on railway suicides were also obtained from the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) and compared with ONS data. We used joinpoint regression to identify changes in suicide trends across the study period. RESULTS: The railway was used in 4.1% of all suicides in England and Wales (RSSB data were similar to ONS data for most years). Suicides in all persons from all causes decreased from 2000 to 2007, with small increases from 2008 until 2013; this rise was entirely due to an increase in male suicides. Railway suicide rates increased over the entire study period; the proportion of railway suicides in all persons increased from 3.5 to 4.9% during the study period. This trend was also mainly driven by increases in male suicides as female railway suicide rates remained steady over time. The highest age specific railway suicide rates were observed in middle aged men and women. Although there was no conclusive evidence of an increase in ONS railway suicides, RSSB data showed a statistically significant increase in railway suicides in males from 2009 onwards. CONCLUSION: The continued rise in male railway suicide in England and Wales is concerning, particularly due to the high economic costs and psychological trauma associated with these deaths. The initiative's target of a 20% reduction in railway suicide is unlikely to be achieved.