Transdermal nicotine in non-smokers: A systematic review to design COVID-19 clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Methods
Analyses of nicotine administration protocols and safety were conducted after reviewing Medline and Science Direct databases performing a search using the words [transdermal nicotine] AND [non-smoker] AND selected diseases.Results
Among 298 articles identified, there were 35 reviewed publications reporting on 33 studies of non-smokers receiving transdermal nicotine for >48hours. In the 16 randomized trials, 7 crossover, 1 case/control and 9 open studies patients received an initial nicotine dose of between 2.5mg and 15mg/day. In 22 studies, daily doses increased by 2 to 7 steps in 3 to 96 days until the dose was between 5mg and 105mg/day. The target nicotine dose was 19.06±20.89mg/day. The 987 non-smokers (534 never-smokers, 326 ex-smokers and 127 classified as "non-smokers") received or did not receive nicotine. The most common side-effects were nausea and skin itching. Forty-three (7.1%) non-smokers stopped treatment because of an adverse event of nicotine. No hospitalization related to nicotine side-effects were reported.Conclusion
Despite a relatively safe tolerance profile, transdermal nicotine therapy in non-smokers can only be used in clinical trials. There is a lack of formal assessment of the potential risk of developing a tobacco addiction. This review offers baseline data to set a transdermal nicotine protocol for non-smokers with a new purpose.
SUBMITTER: Dautzenberg B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8183099 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but no systematic analysis has evaluated the overall impact of COVID-19 on non-COVID-19-related RCTs. The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried in February 2020. Eligible studies included all randomized trials with a start date after 1 January 2010 and were active during the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020. The effect of the pandemic period on non-COVID-19 trials was determined by piece-wise regression models using 11 March 2020 as the start of the pandemic and by time series analysis (models fitted using 2015-2018 data and forecasted for 2019-2020). The study endpoints were early trial stoppage, normal trial completion, and trial activation. There were 161,377 non-COVID-19 trials analyzed. The number of active trials increased annually through 2019 but decreased in 2020. According to the piece-wise regression models, trial completion was not affected by the pandemic (p = 0.56) whereas trial stoppage increased (p = 0.001). There was a pronounced decrease in trial activation early during the pandemic (p < 0.001) which then recovered. The findings from the time series models were consistent comparing forecasted and observed results (trial completion p = 0.22; trial stoppage p < 0.01; trial activation, p = 0.01). During the pandemic, there was an increase in non-COVID-19 RCTs stoppage without changes in RCT completion. There was a sharp decline in new RCTs at the beginning of the pandemic, which later recovered.
| S-EPMC8781416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 4 decades, numerous nicotine replacement therapy products have been developed. Population pharmacokinetic models can support exposure-response modeling and inform nicotine replacement therapy product development, but only limited model-based cross-study population pharmacokinetic analyses for nicotine replacement therapy products have been published.ObjectivesThe aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess the population pharmacokinetics of nicotine across intravenous, oral, transdermal and oromucosal (mouth spray, chewing gum, lozenge and inhaler) routes and formulations in healthy smoking subjects.MethodsData on 930 unique subjects (46,016 observations) from 29 single- and repeated-dose studies with multiple formulations across intravenous, oral, transdermal and oromucosal routes of administration were included. Data from intravenous and extravascular routes of administration were modelled separately for run efficiency reasons. For developing extravascular models, clearance and disposition parameters and their inter-individual variabilities were fixed to the estimates for intravenously delivered nicotine. Detectable pre-dose nicotine concentrations were modelled as a hypothetical nicotine bolus into the central compartment at the start of wash-out. Modelling repeated-dose oral and buccal administrations required a time-dependent increase in clearance or decrease in bioavailability to describe the data adequately.ResultsDisposition of intravenous nicotine was best described by a three-compartment model with initial and terminal half-lives of 7 min and 4.5 h, respectively, and the absorption of single oral doses was best described with a first-order absorption rate constant of 1.55 h-1. The data of buccal formulations were modelled with parallel oromucosal absorption and gastrointestinal absorption of a part of the dose that is swallowed. For transdermal nicotine, parallel zero- and first-order release from the patch and a transit-compartment absorption model best described the data. Key pharmacokinetic parameters were reliably estimated, with typical values for clearance (67 L/h for a 70-kg subject), volume of distribution (4.3 L/kg), oral bioavailability (40%) and transdermal bioavailability (76%) within expected ranges. The estimated fraction of the dose swallowed for buccal formulations ranged from 55% (gum) to 69% (lozenge).ConclusionsRobust population pharmacokinetic models were developed for five nicotine replacement therapy product types and for intravenous and oral nicotine. These population pharmacokinetic models are used in exposure-response analyses and simulation-based nicotine replacement therapy product design.
| S-EPMC8016787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has mobilized global research at an unprecedented scale. While challenges associated with the COVID-19 trial landscape have been discussed previously, no comprehensive reviews have been conducted to assess the reporting, design, and data sharing practices of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).PurposeThe purpose of this review was to gain insight into the current landscape of reporting, methodological design, and data sharing practices for COVID-19 RCTs.Data sourcesWe conducted three searches to identify registered clinical trials, peer-reviewed publications, and pre-print publications.Study selectionAfter screening eight major trial registries and 7844 records, we identified 178 registered trials and 38 publications describing 35 trials, including 25 peer-reviewed publications and 13 pre-prints.Data extractionTrial ID, registry, location, population, intervention, control, study design, recruitment target, actual recruitment, outcomes, data sharing statement, and time of data sharing were extracted.Data synthesisOf 178 registered trials, 112 (62.92%) were in hospital settings, median planned recruitment was 100 participants (IQR: 60, 168), and the majority (n = 166, 93.26%) did not report results in their respective registries. Of 35 published trials, 31 (88.57%) were in hospital settings, median actual recruitment was 86 participants (IQR: 55.5, 218), 10 (28.57%) did not reach recruitment targets, and 27 trials (77.14%) reported plans to share data.ConclusionsThe findings of our study highlight limitations in the design and reporting practices of COVID-19 RCTs and provide guidance towards more efficient reporting of trial results, greater diversity in patient settings, and more robust data sharing.
| S-EPMC7834682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe representativeness of participants is crucial to ensure external validity of clinical trials. We focused on the randomized clinical trials which assessed COVID-19 vaccines to assess the reporting of age, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, obesity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status in the results (description of the participants' characteristics, loss of follow-up, stratification of efficacy and safety results).MethodsWe searched the following databases for randomized clinical trials published before 1st February 2022: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Excerpta Medica. We included peer-reviewed articles written in English or Spanish. Four researchers used the Rayyan platform to filter citations, first reading the title and abstract, and then accessing the full text. Articles were excluded if both reviewers agreed, or if a third reviewer decided to discard them.ResultsSixty three articles were included, which assessed 20 different vaccines, mainly in phase 2 or 3. When describing the participants' characteristics, all the studies reported sex or gender, 73.0% race, ethnicity, 68.9% age groups, and 22.2% obesity. Only one article described the age of participants lost to follow-up. Efficacy results were stratified by age in 61.9%, sex or gender in 26.9%, race and/or, ethnicity in 9.5%, and obesity in 4.8% of the articles. Safety results were stratified by age in 41.0%, and by sex or gender in 7.9% of the analysis. Reporting of gender identity, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status of participants was rare. Parity was reached in 49.2% of the studies, and sex-specific outcomes were mentioned in 22.9% of the analysis, most of the latter were related to females' health.ConclusionsAxes of social inequity other than age and sex were hardly reported in randomized clinical trials that assessed COVID-19 vaccines. This undermines their representativeness and external validity and sustains health inequities.
| S-EPMC9987589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-daily smokers (NDS) who smoke on some but not all days are a growing subset of United States (US) tobacco users. Racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to be NDS. African American NDS have strikingly high levels of nicotine and carcinogen exposure, making treatment of this high risk group a priority.MethodsThe current study is one of three ongoing federally-funded clinical trials of NDS and, to our knowledge the only RCT focused on racial/ethnic minority NDS. The design has been guided by input from Patient and Stakeholder Advisory Panels who helped develop the research questions, design the intervention, and select the outcomes. The objective is to compare the effectiveness of smoking cessation counseling alone (C) or smoking cessation counseling plus participant's choice of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; C + NRT) for African American NDS. Two-hundred seventy-eight African American NDS will be randomized in a 2:1 fashion to C + NRT or C. All participants receive five sessions of smoking cessation counseling; those randomized to C + NRT receive their choice of nicotine gum, patch, and/or lozenge. Treatment in both groups lasts for 12 weeks. We hypothesize that C + NRT will be more effective than C on the primary outcome of biochemically-confirmed abstinence from smoking at week 12. Secondary aims will compare C + NRT and C on patient- and provider-desired outcomes including abstinence from smoking at week 26, change in biochemically-verified nicotine and carcinogen exposure, days abstinent, and treatment process measures (e.g., NRT use and side effects). Predictors of abstinence will also be explored.DiscussionFindings will illuminate effective treatment options for African American NDS and contribute to development of evidence-based guidelines for treating the 8.9 million US adult NDS for whom no guidelines currently exist.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02244918.
| S-EPMC6047745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the pharmacological mechanisms of antiviral drugs against the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the study designs in clinical trials registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).MethodsClinical trials involving antiviral drugs for treating COVID-19 were retrieved from the ICTRP database. For each trial, the study design, number of participants, primary endpoints, source register, antiviral mechanism, and results were evaluated.ResultsOn June 10, 2020, 145 eligible clinical trials were retrieved from the ICTRP, of which 99 (68.3%) were randomized trials, 109 (75.2%) were parallel assignment trials, 38 (26.2%) were double or single blinded, 130 (89.7%) involved two groups, and 75 (51.6%) included more than 100 participants; and clinical improvement or recovery and virus-negative conversion were the two most common endpoints, accounting for 40.7% and 18.6%, respectively. The drugs were divided according to the antiviral mechanism into HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitors, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitors, HIV protease inhibitors (PIs), hepatitis C virus NS3 PIs, and anti-influenza drugs.ConclusionThe design characteristics of clinical trials of antiviral drugs for treating COVID-19 as well as the mechanism of action and antiviral efficacy of the drugs were evaluated in this study. The results of these trials could constitute a reference for future clinical trials to be executed on COVID-19 treatment and prevention.
| S-EPMC7509319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEffective COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics reached the market within the first year of the pandemic. This rate of development and availability was an unprecedented achievement that required attention to numerous research and development, regulatory, and policy challenges. However, only limited evidence is currently available on the sources of funding for COVID-19 clinical trials.ObjectiveTo compare the number and funding sources of clinical trials aimed at investigating therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19 vs those for all non-COVID-19 indications.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, clinical trials in phase 1 to 3 that were registered to start between January 1, 2020, and August 31, 2021, were examined. All relevant data were collected from ClinicalTrials.gov.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of clinical trials and their funding sources.ResultsA total of 1977 clinical trials that addressed COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines were registered worldwide with starting dates from January 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021. This cohort represented 13.9% of all trials (N = 14 274) during the same period. Most of the COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine clinical trials were funded by public sources (1144 [57.9%]), followed by industry (540 [27.3%]) and public-private partnerships (293 [14.8%]). Most of these studies focused on the development of anti-COVID-19 therapeutics (1680 [85.0%]) rather than vaccines (297 [15.0%]).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that publicly funded research and medical institutions played a leading role as funding sources for generating effective COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines during the first 1.5 years of the pandemic and were most likely instrumental in their rapid development. It may be beneficial for the public sector to maintain the affordability and global access to these therapeutics and vaccines to ensure that they remain available for use worldwide.
| S-EPMC9382437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tobacco smoking is the most common preventable cause of death in the US. Nicotine is considered the primary constituent responsible for tobacco addiction. Its paradoxically high abuse potential may reflect behavioral control by drug-associated stimuli, which appears to play a larger role for tobacco dependence than for other abused drugs. We tested a potential explanation, hypothesizing that nicotine enhances associative learning, the mechanism underlying the conditioning of drug-associated stimuli. Thirty-two non-smokers were exposed to transdermal nicotine (7?mg/24?h) and placebo in a double-blind cross-over study and tested with behavioral paradigms designed to isolate incidental stimulus-stimulus or stimulus-response learning. The stop signal task required speeded gender judgments of face stimuli. A tone signaled when to withhold the response. Unbeknownst to participants, some faces were always paired with stop trials. Nicotine enhanced the facilitation of stop-responses to these stimuli, and the slowing of go-responses when previously stop-associated stimuli were paired with go trials, indicating stronger associations between paired stimuli and the stop signal/stop response. Another task required feedback-based learning of associations between pairs of shape stimuli. Five pairs were made from either ten different stimuli, or from different combinations of two identical sets of five stimuli with correct associations depending on contextual information. Nicotine increased incorrect choices of stimuli that were associated in a different context, indicating stronger stimulus-stimulus associations at the expense of flexible context-adaptive behavior. The results indicate that nicotine can enhance incidental associative learning, a mechanism that may promote the formation of smoking-associated stimuli and cue-controlled drug-taking.
| S-EPMC6135766 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many researchers in China have performed related clinical research. However, systematic reviews of the registered clinical trials are still lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of clinical trials for COVID-19 to summarize their characteristics.MethodsThis study is based on the PRISMA recommendations in the Cochrane handbook. The Chinese Clinical Registration Center and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify registered clinical trials related to COVID-19. The retrieval inception date was February 9, 2020. Two researchers independently selected the literature based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias.ResultsA total of 75 registered clinical trials (63 interventional studies and 12 observational studies) for COVID-19 were identified. The majority of clinical trials were sponsored by Chinese hospitals. Only 11 trials have begun to recruit patients, and none of the registered clinical trials have been completed; 34 trials were early clinical exploratory trials or in the pre-experiment stage, 13 trials were phase III, and four trials were phase IV. The intervention methods included traditional Chinese medicine in 26 trials, Western medicine in 30 trials, and integrated traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine in 19 trials. The subjects were primarily non-critical adult patients (≥ 18 years old). The median sample size of the trials was 100 (IQR: 60-200), and the median length of the trial periods was 179 d (IQR: 94-366 d). The main outcomes were clinical observation and examinations. Overall, the methodological quality of both the interventional trials and observational studies was low.ConclusionsIntensive clinical trials on the treatment of COVID-19 using traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine are ongoing or will be performed in China. However, based on the uncertain methodological quality, small sample size, and long trial duration, we will not be able to obtain reliable, high-quality clinical evidence regarding the treatment of COVID-19 in the near future. Improving the quality of study design, prioritizing promising drugs, and using different designs and statistical methods are worth advocating and recommending for clinical trials of COVID-19 in the future.
| S-EPMC7338108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDue to the rapid spread of COVID-19 worldwide, many countries have designed clinical trials to find efficient treatments. We aimed to critically report the characteristics of all the registered and published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted on COVID-19, and summarize the evaluation of potential therapies developed in various regions.Evidence acquisitionWe comprehensively searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Clinicaltrial.gov databases to retrieve all the relevant studies up to July 19, 2021, in conformity with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart. We included all English-language published/registered RCTs on COVID-19, and excluded non-RCT, in-vitro/in-vivo, editorials, and review studies. Two reviewers independently evaluated all the records, and then analyzed by using SPSS 17.ResultsWithin 3018 included studies, 2801 (92.8%) and 217 (7.2%) were registered or published RCTs consisting of about 600 synthetic drugs. Herbal medicines have been studied in 23 trials (10.6%) among the published RCTs and in 357 registered RCTs (12.7%). Hydroxychloroquine 23 (10.6%) and convalescent plasma 194 (6.9%) alone or in combination with other agents were the most frequently used interventions in published and registered RCTs, respectively. Most published RCTs have been conducted in Western Pacific Region (WPRO) (50 trials, 23.0%) including 45 trials from China. Also, a greater proportion of registered RCTs have been conducted in the Region of the Americas (PAHO) (885 trials, 31.6%) including 596 RCTs from the United States (U.S). Globally, 283 registered trials have been conducted to assess new developed vaccines for COVID or previously established for other disorders.ConclusionThe present study highlighted the wide range of potential therapeutic agents in published and registered COVID-19 clinical trials across a wide range of regions. However, it is urgently required to global coordination in order to conduct more well-designed trials and progress in discovering safe and effective treatments.
| S-EPMC8581284 | biostudies-literature