Dataset Information

Is a combination of varenicline and nicotine patch more effective in helping smokers quit than varenicline alone? A randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and varenicline are both effective in helping smokers quit. There is growing interest in combining the two treatments to improve treatment outcomes, but no experimental data exist on whether this is efficacious. This double-blind randomised controlled trial was designed to evaluate whether adding nicotine patches to varenicline improves withdrawal relief and short-term abstinence rates.117 participants seeking help to stop smoking were randomly allocated to varenicline plus placebo patch or varenicline plus nicotine patch (15 mg/16 hour). Varenicline use commenced one week prior to the target quit date (TQD), patch use started on the TQD. Ratings of urges to smoke and cigarette withdrawal symptoms were collected weekly over 4 weeks post-TQD. Medication use and smoking status were established at 1, 4 and 12 weeks. Participants lost to follow-up were included as continuing smokers.92% of participants used both medications during the first week after the TQD. The combination treatment generated no increase in nausea or other adverse effects. It had no overall effect on urges to smoke or on other withdrawal symptoms. The combination treatment did not improve biochemically validated abstinence rates at 1 week and 4 weeks post-TQD (69% vs 59%, p=0.28 and 60% vs 59%, p=0.91, in the nicotine patch and placebo patch arm, respectively), or self reported abstinence rates at 12 weeks (36% vs. 29%, p=0.39, NS).The efficacy of varenicline was not enhanced by the addition of nicotine patches, although further trials would be useful to exclude the possibility of type II error.Clinicaltrials.govNCT01184664.

SUBMITTER: Hajek P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4231450 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is a combination of varenicline and nicotine patch more effective in helping smokers quit than varenicline alone? A randomised controlled trial.

Hajek Peter P Smith Katie Myers KM Dhanji Al-Rehan AR McRobbie Hayden H

BMC medicine 20130529

<h4>Background</h4>Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and varenicline are both effective in helping smokers quit. There is growing interest in combining the two treatments to improve treatment outcomes, but no experimental data exist on whether this is efficacious. This double-blind randomised controlled trial was designed to evaluate whether adding nicotine patches to varenicline improves withdrawal relief and short-term abstinence rates.<h4>Methods</h4>117 participants seeking help to stop smo ...[more]

PMID: 23718718

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceQuitting smoking is enhanced by the use of pharmacotherapies, but concerns have been raised regarding the cardiovascular safety of such medications.ObjectiveTo compare the relative cardiovascular safety risk of smoking cessation treatments.Design, setting, and participantsA double-blind, randomized, triple-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled trial (Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study [EAGLES]) and its nontreatment extension trial was conducted at 140 multinational centers. Smokers, with or without established psychiatric diagnoses, who received at least 1 dose of study medication (n = 8058), as well as a subset of those who completed 12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks of follow up and agreed to be followed up for an additional 28 weeks (n = 4595), were included.InterventionsVarenicline, 1 mg twice daily; bupropion hydrochloride, 150 mg twice daily; and nicotine replacement therapy, 21-mg/d patch with tapering.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the time to development of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE: cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) during treatment; secondary end points were the occurrence of MACE and other pertinent cardiovascular events (MACE+: MACE or new-onset or worsening peripheral vascular disease requiring intervention, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina).ResultsOf the 8058 participants, 3553 (44.1%) were male (mean [SD] age, 46.5 [12.3] years). The incidence of cardiovascular events during treatment and follow-up was low (<0.5% for MACE; <0.8% for MACE+) and did not differ significantly by treatment. No significant treatment differences were observed in time to cardiovascular events, blood pressure, or heart rate. There was no significant difference in time to onset of MACE for either varenicline or bupropion treatment vs placebo (varenicline: hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.05-1.68 and bupropion: hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.10-2.50).Conclusions and relevanceNo evidence that the use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies increased the risk of serious cardiovascular adverse events during or after treatment was observed. The findings of EAGLES and its extension trial provide further evidence that smoking cessation medications do not increase the risk of serious cardiovascular events in the general population of smokers.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01574703.

Project description:BackgroundThe potential of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) to reduce the cardiovascular and other disease risks of smoking is of great interest. While many smokers report using ENDS for cessation, their impact under real-world use patterns and conditions on adult smokers' quitting behavior is uncertain. The objective of this study was to generate more recent and comprehensive evidence on the effect of "real world" ENDS use on the population quit rates of adult smokers while taking account of frequency and duration of use, device type, e-liquid flavor, and reasons for use.Methods and findingsWe conducted a population-based, prospective cohort study of a random probability sample of 1284 U.S. adult smokers recruited in August/September 2015 and re-contacted one-year later (September 2016) from GfK's KnowledgePanel, a national, probability-based web-panel designed to be representative of non-institutionalized U.S. adults. Among the 1081 baseline smokers who remained members of KnowledgePanel, 858 completed the follow-up survey. The primary outcome was smoking abstinence for at least 30 days prior to follow-up. Secondary outcomes were making a quit attempt during the 12-month study period and number of cigarettes smoked per day at follow-up. The adjusted odds of quitting smoking were lower for those that used ENDS at baseline (9.4%, 95% CI = 5.22%-16.38%; AOR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.13-0.72) compared to smokers who did not use at ENDS (18.9%, 95% CI = 14.24%-24.68%). Smokers who used ENDS daily at some point during the study period were also less likely to quit smoking than nonusers (AOR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.04-0.82). Limited ability to draw causal inferences from the observational design and a lack of biochemical verification of quitting smoking or ENDS use are limitations of this study.ConclusionsWe found no evidence that ENDS use, within context of the 2015-2016 US regulatory and tobacco/vaping market landscape, helped adult smokers quit at rates higher than smokers who did not use these products. Absent any meaningful changes, ENDS use among adult smokers is unlikely to be a sufficient solution to obtaining a meaningful increase in population quit rates. Additional research is needed to reconcile the divergent literature and monitor the impact of ENDS in an environment of rapidly evolving markets and regulatory policies.

Project description:Smoking cessation medications are routinely used in health care; it is vital to identify medications that most effectively treat this leading cause of preventable mortality.To compare the efficacies of varenicline, combination nicotine replacement therapy (C-NRT), and the nicotine patch for 26-week quit rates.Three-group randomized intention-to-treat clinical trial occurring from May 2012 to November 2015 among smokers recruited in the Madison, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, communities; 65.5% of smokers offered the study (2687/4102) refused participation prior to randomization.Participants were randomized to one of three 12-week open-label smoking cessation pharmacotherapy groups: (1) nicotine patch only (n?=?241); (2) varenicline only (including 1 prequit week; n?=?424); and (3) C-NRT (nicotine patch?+?nicotine lozenge; n?=?421). Six counseling sessions were offered.The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported initial abstinence, prolonged abstinence at 26 weeks, and point-prevalence abstinence at weeks 4, 12, and 52.Among 1086 smokers randomized (52% women; 67% white; mean age, 48 years; mean of 17 cigarettes smoked per day), 917 (84%) provided 12-month follow-up data. Treatments did not differ on any abstinence outcome measure at 26 or 52 weeks, including point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks (nicotine patch, 22.8% [55/241]; varenicline, 23.6% [100/424]; and C-NRT, 26.8% [113/421]) or at 52 weeks (nicotine patch, 20.8% [50/241]; varenicline, 19.1% [81/424]; and C-NRT, 20.2% [85/421]). At 26 weeks, the risk differences for abstinence were, for patch vs varenicline, -0.76% (95% CI, -7.4% to 5.9%); for patch vs C-NRT, -4.0% (95% CI, -10.8% to 2.8%); and for varenicline vs C-NRT, -3.3% (95% CI, -9.1% to 2.6%). All medications were well tolerated, but varenicline produced more frequent adverse events than did the nicotine patch for vivid dreams, insomnia, nausea, constipation, sleepiness, and indigestion.Among adults motivated to quit smoking, 12 weeks of open-label treatment with nicotine patch, varenicline, or C-NRT produced no significant differences in biochemically confirmed rates of smoking abstinence at 26 weeks. The results raise questions about the relative effectiveness of intense smoking pharmacotherapies.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01553084.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Varenicline (VAR) is an effective smoking-cessation therapy compared to the commonly used nicotine-replacement therapy patch (NRT-P). However, comparative real-world evidence on smoking-cessation therapies is limited, especially for economic outcomes. METHODS:Using national claims databases (2012-2016) in the United States (US), adults initiating VAR or NRT-P without use of any other smoking-cessation products were followed for up to 1 year on a quarterly basis. Outcomes included smoking-attributable (SA) (cardiovascular, diabetes, pulmonary diseases, and smoking cessation) and all-cause costs (2017 US dollars). Adjusted mean costs were estimated from multivariable regressions, with baseline characteristics and propensity scores as covariates. Annual adjusted costs were calculated from quarterly averages. RESULTS:The VAR cohort (n = 209,284) was younger (mean age 46.7 vs. 49.0 years) and had fewer comorbidities [mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI): 0.8 vs. 1.6] than the NRT-P cohort (n = 34,593). After adjustment, VAR cohort had lower SA and all-cause medical costs than NRT-P cohort in Quarters 1-4 (Q1-Q4) of follow-up, and had lower SA and all-cause total costs in Q2-Q4. Annually, VAR cohort had higher SA total costs ($307) and lower all-cause costs (- $2089) than NRT-P cohort. Annual medical costs were lower in VAR cohort (- $640 for SA and - $2876 for all-cause), and pharmacy costs were higher ($762 for SA and $777 for all-cause). In adherent patients (VAR: n = 38,744; NRT-P: n = 2702), VAR patients had lower annual medical costs (- $794 for SA and - $1636 for all-cause) and higher pharmacy costs ($1175 for SA and $1269 for all-cause); differences in SA and all-cause total costs were not statistically significant between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS:Lower SA and all-cause medical costs associated with the use of VAR versus NRT-P resulted in savings in all-cause total costs and, among adherent patients, potentially offset the high pharmacy costs of VAR. FUNDING:Pfizer, Inc.

Project description:Most smokers abstain from smoking during hospitalization but relapse upon discharge. This study tests the effectiveness of two proven treatments (i.e., nicotine patches and telephone counseling) in helping these patients stay quit after discharge from the hospital, and assesses a model of hospital-quitline partnership.This study had a 2×2 factorial design in which participants were stratified by recruitment site and smoking rate and randomly assigned to usual care, nicotine patches only, counseling only, or patches plus counseling. They were evaluated at 2 and 6 months post-randomization.A total of 1,270 hospitalized adult smokers were recruited from August 2011 to November 2013 from five hospitals within three healthcare systems.Participants in the patch condition were provided 8 weeks of nicotine patches at discharge (or were mailed them post-discharge). Quitline staff started proactively calling participants in the counseling condition 3 days post-discharge to provide standard quitline counseling.The primary outcome measure was self-reported 30-day abstinence at 6 months using an intention-to-treat analysis. Data were analyzed from September 2015 to May 2016.The 30-day abstinence rate at 6 months was 22.8% for the nicotine patch condition and 18.3% for the no-patch condition (p=0.051). Nearly all participants (99%) in the patch condition were provided nicotine patches, although 36% were sent post-discharge. The abstinence rates were 20.0% and 21.1% for counseling and no counseling conditions, respectively (p=0.651). Fewer than half of the participants in the counseling condition (47%) received counseling (mean follow-up sessions, 3.6).Provision of nicotine patches proved feasible, although their effectiveness in helping discharged patients stay quit was not significant. Telephone counseling was not effective, in large part because of low rates of engagement. Future interventions will need to be more immediate to be effective.This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01289275.

Dataset Information

Is a combination of varenicline and nicotine patch more effective in helping smokers quit than varenicline alone? A randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Is a combination of varenicline and nicotine patch more effective in helping smokers quit than varenicline alone? A randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure