A vaccine against nicotine for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco dependence is the leading cause of preventable death and disabilities worldwide and nicotine is the main substance responsible for the addiction to tobacco. A vaccine against nicotine was tested in a 6-month randomized, double blind phase II smoking cessation study in 341 smokers with a subsequent 6-month follow-up period. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 229 subjects were randomized to receive five intramuscular injections of the nicotine vaccine and 112 to receive placebo at monthly intervals. All subjects received individual behavioral smoking cessation counseling. The vaccine was safe, generally well tolerated and highly immunogenic, inducing a 100% antibody responder rate after the first injection. Point prevalence of abstinence at month 2 showed a statistically significant difference between subjects treated with Nicotine-Qbeta (47.2%) and placebo (35.1%) (P = 0.036), but continuous abstinence between months 2 and 6 was not significantly different. However, in subgroup analysis of the per-protocol population, the third of subjects with highest antibody levels showed higher continuous abstinence from month 2 until month 6 (56.6%) than placebo treated participants (31.3%) (OR 2.9; P = 0.004) while medium and low antibody levels did not increase abstinence rates. After 12 month, the difference in continuous abstinence rate between subjects on placebo and those with high antibody response was maintained (difference 20.2%, P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Whereas Nicotine-Qbeta did not significantly increase continuous abstinence rates in the intention-to-treat population, subgroup analyses of the per-protocol population suggest that such a vaccination against nicotine can significantly increase continuous abstinence rates in smokers when sufficiently high antibody levels are achieved. Immunotherapy might open a new avenue to the treatment of nicotine addiction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Swiss Medical Registry 2003DR2327; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00369616.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: Smoking contributes to reasons for hospitalisation, and the period of hospitalisation may be a good time to provide help with quitting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO in December 2011 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted to facilities that primarily treat psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow-up of less than six months. Both acute care hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals were included in this update, with separate analyses done for each type of hospital. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.48; 25 trials). A specific benefit for post-discharge contact compared with usual care was found in a subset of trials in which all participants received a counselling intervention in the hospital and were randomly assigned to post-discharge contact or usual care. No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to an intensive counselling intervention increased smoking cessation rates compared with intensive counselling alone (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.79, six trials). Adding varenicline to intensive counselling had a non-significant effect in two trials (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.74). Adding bupropion did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over intensive counselling alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45, three trials). A similar pattern of results was observed in a subgroup of smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the rate of smoking cessation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.56), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period. These trials were all conducted in acute care hospitals. A comparable increase in smoking cessation rates was observed in a separate pooled analysis of intensive counselling interventions in rehabilitation hospitals (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.14, three trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. The effect of these interventions was independent of the patient's admitting diagnosis and was found in rehabilitation settings as well as acute care hospitals. There was no evidence of effect for interventions of lower intensity or shorter duration. This update found that adding NRT to intensive counselling significantly increases cessation rates over counselling alone. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding bupropion or varenicline to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone.

Nicotine vaccines for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: By reducing the amount of nicotine that reaches the brain when a person smokes a cigarette, nicotine vaccines may help people to stop smoking or to prevent recent quitters from relapsing. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review are to assess the efficacy of nicotine vaccines for smoking cessation and for relapse prevention, and to assess the frequency and type of adverse events associated with the use of nicotine vaccines. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group specialised register for trials, using the term 'vaccine' in the title or abstract, or in a keyword (date of most recent search April 2012). To identify any other material including reviews and papers potentially relevant to the background or discussion sections, we also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, combining terms for nicotine vaccines with terms for smoking and tobacco use, without design limits or limits for human subjects. We searched the Annual Meeting abstracts of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco up to 2012, using the search string 'vaccin'. We searched Google Scholar for 'nicotine vaccine'. We also searched company websites and Google for information related to specific vaccines. We searched clinicaltrials.gov in March 2012 for 'nicotine vaccine' and for the trade names of known vaccine candidates. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of nicotine vaccines, at Phase II and Phase III trial stage and beyond, in adult smokers or recent ex-smokers. We included studies of nicotine vaccines used as part of smoking cessation or relapse prevention interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, blinding of participants and personnel, reporting of outcomes, and completeness of follow-up.Our primary outcome measure was a minimum of six months abstinence from smoking. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred cessation rates at 12 months and biochemically validated rates where available. We have used the risk ratio (RR) to summarize individual trial outcomes. We have not pooled the current group of included studies as they cover different vaccines and variable regimens. MAIN RESULTS: There are no nicotine vaccines currently licensed for public use, but there are a number in development. We found four trials which met our inclusion criteria, three comparing NicVAX to placebo and one comparing NIC002 (formerly NicQbeta) to placebo. All were smoking cessation trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies as part of the drug development process, and all trials were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, 2642 smokers participated in the included studies in this review. None of the four included studies detected a statistically significant difference in long-term cessation between participants receiving vaccine and those receiving placebo. The RR for 12 month cessation in active and placebo groups was 1.35 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.82 to 2.22) in the trial of NIC002 and 1.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 4.18) in one NicVAX trial. Two Phase III NicVAX trials, for which full results were not available, reported similar quit rates of approximately 11% in both groups. In the two studies with full results available, post hoc analyses detected higher cessation rates in participants with higher levels of nicotine antibodies, but these findings are not readily generalisable. The two studies with full results showed nicotine vaccines to be well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events classified as mild or moderate. In the study of NIC002, participants receiving the vaccine were more likely to report mild to moderate adverse events, most commonly flu-like symptoms, whereas in the study of NicVAX there was no significant difference between the two arms. Information on adverse events was not available for the large Phase III trials of NicVAX.Vaccine candidates are likely to undergo significant changes before becoming available to the general public, and those included in this review may not be the first to reach market; this limits the external validity of the results reported in this review in terms of both effectiveness and tolerability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence that nicotine vaccines enhance long-term smoking cessation. Rates of serious adverse events recorded in the two trials with full data available were low, and the majority of adverse events reported were at mild to moderate levels. The evidence available suggests nicotine vaccines do not induce compensatory smoking or affect withdrawal symptoms. No nicotine vaccines are currently licensed for use in any country but a number are under development.Further trials of nicotine vaccines are needed, comparing vaccines with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials are also needed to explore the potential of nicotine vaccines to prevent relapse. Results from past, current and future research should be reported in full. Adverse events and serious adverse events should continue to be carefully monitored and thoroughly reported.

A systematic review of longitudinal population-based studies on the predictors of smoking cessation in adolescent and young adult smokers.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the determinants of self-initiated smoking cessation of duration of at least 6 months as identified in longitudinal population-based studies of adolescent and young adult smokers. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases using smoking, tobacco, cessation, quit and stop as keywords was performed. Limits included articles related to humans, in English, published between January 1984 and August 2010, and study population aged 10-29 years. A total of 4502 titles and 871 abstracts were reviewed independently by 2 and 3 reviewers, respectively. Nine articles were retained for data abstraction. Data on study location, timeframe, duration of follow-up, number of data collection points, sample size, age/grade of participants, number of quitters, smoking status at baseline, definition of cessation, covariates and analytic method were abstracted from each article. The number of studies that reported a statistically significant association between each determinant investigated and cessation were tabulated, from among all studies that assessed the determinant. RESULTS: Despite heterogeneity in methods across studies, five factors robustly predicted quitting across studies in which the factor was investigated: not having friends who smoke, not having intentions to smoke in the future, resisting peer pressure to smoke, being older at first use of cigarette and having negative beliefs about smoking. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on longitudinal predictors of cessation in adolescent and young adult smokers is not well developed. Cessation interventions for this population will remain less than optimally effective until there is a solid evidence base on which to develop interventions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a European primary-care physician training in smoking cessation counseling.

BACKGROUND: Physician training in smoking cessation counseling has been shown to be effective as a means to increase quit success. We assessed the cost-effectiveness ratio of a smoking cessation counseling training programme. Its effectiveness was previously demonstrated in a cluster randomized, control trial performed in two Swiss university outpatients clinics, in which residents were randomized to receive training in smoking interventions or a control educational intervention. DESIGN AND METHODS: We used a Markov simulation model for effectiveness analysis. This model incorporates the intervention efficacy, the natural quit rate, and the lifetime probability of relapse after 1-year abstinence. We used previously published results in addition to hospital service and outpatient clinic cost data. The time horizon was 1 year, and we opted for a third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: The incremental cost of the intervention amounted to US$2.58 per consultation by a smoker, translating into a cost per life-year saved of US$25.4 for men and 35.2 for women. One-way sensitivity analyses yielded a range of US$4.0-107.1 in men and US$9.7-148.6 in women. Variations in the quit rate of the control intervention, the length of training effectiveness, and the discount rate yielded moderately large effects on the outcome. Variations in the natural cessation rate, the lifetime probability of relapse, the cost of physician training, the counseling time, the cost per hour of physician time, and the cost of the booklets had little effect on the cost-effectiveness ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Training residents in smoking cessation counseling is a very cost-effective intervention and may be more efficient than currently accepted tobacco control interventions.

Outcome of smoking cessation counselling of HIV-positive persons by HIV care physicians.

OBJECTIVES: Smoking is the most prevalent modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular diseases among HIV-positive persons. We assessed the effect on smoking cessation of training HIV care physicians in counselling. METHODS: The Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) is a multicentre prospective observational database. Our single-centre intervention at the Zurich centre included a half day of standardized training for physicians in counselling and in the pharmacotherapy of smokers, and a physicians' checklist for semi-annual documentation of their counselling. Smoking status was then compared between participants at the Zurich centre and other institutions. We used marginal logistic regression models with exchangeable correlation structure and robust standard errors to estimate the odds of smoking cessation and relapse. RESULTS: Between April 2000 and December 2010, 11 056 SHCS participants had 121 238 semi-annual visits and 64 118 person-years of follow-up. The prevalence of smoking decreased from 60 to 43%. During the intervention at the Zurich centre from November 2007 to December 2009, 1689 participants in this centre had 6068 cohort visits. These participants were more likely to stop smoking [odds ratio (OR) 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.42; P=0.004] and had fewer relapses (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61-0.92; P=0.007) than participants at other SHCS institutions. The effect of the intervention was stronger than the calendar time effect (OR 1.19 vs. 1.04 per year, respectively). Middle-aged participants, injecting drug users, and participants with psychiatric problems or with higher alcohol consumption were less likely to stop smoking, whereas persons with a prior cardiovascular event were more likely to stop smoking. CONCLUSIONS: An institution-wide training programme for HIV care physicians in smoking cessation counselling led to increased smoking cessation and fewer relapses.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Impact of Smoking, Smoking Cessation, and Genetic Polymorphisms on CYP1A2 Activity and Inducibility.

Cytochrome P4501A2 (CYP1A2) is involved in the metabolism of several drugs and is induced by smoking. We aimed to determine the interindividual change in CYP1A2 activity after smoking cessation and to relate it to CYP1A2 genetic polymorphisms. CYP1A2 activity was determined from the paraxanthine:caffeine ratio in 194 smokers and in 118 of them who had abstained from smoking during a 4-week period. The participants were genotyped for CYP1A2*1F, *1D, and *1C polymorphisms. Smokers had 1.55-fold higher CYP1A2 activity than nonsmokers (P < 0.0001). The individual change in CYP1A2 activity after smoking cessation ranged from 1.0-fold (no change) to a 7.3-fold decrease in activity. In five participants with low initial CYP1A2 activity, an increase was observed after smoking cessation. Before smoking cessation, the following factors were found to influence CYP1A2 activity: CYP1A2*1F (P = 0.005), CYP1A2*1D (P = 0.014), the number of cigarettes/day (P = 0.012), the use of contraceptives (P < 0.001), and -163A/-2467T/-3860G haplotype (P = 0.002). After quitting smoking, only CYP1A2*1F (P = 0.017) and the use of contraceptives (P = 0.05) had an influence. No influence of CYP1A2 polymorphisms on the inducibility of CYP1A2 was observed.

The cost effectiveness of pharmacological smoking cessation therapies in developing countries: a case study in the Seychelles

OBJECTIVE: To examine the incremental cost effectiveness of the five first line pharmacological smoking cessation therapies in the Seychelles and other developing countries. DESIGN: A Markov chain cohort simulation. SUBJECTS: Two simulated cohorts of smokers: (1) a reference cohort given physician counselling only; (2) a treatment cohort given counselling plus cessation therapy. INTERVENTION: Addition of each of the five pharmacological cessation therapies to physician provided smoking cessation counselling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per life-year saved (LYS) associated with the five pharmacotherapies. Effectiveness expressed as odds ratios for quitting associated with pharmacotherapies. Costs based on the additional physician time required and retail prices of the medications. RESULTS: Based on prices for currently available generic medications on the global market, the incremental cost per LYS for a 45 year old in the Seychelles was 599 US dollars for gum and 227 dollars for bupropion. Assuming US treatment prices as a conservative estimate, the incremental cost per LYS was significantly higher, though still favourable in comparison to other common medical interventions: 3712 dollars for nicotine gum, 1982 dollars for nicotine patch, 4597 dollars for nicotine spray, 4291 dollars for nicotine inhaler, and 1324 dollars for bupropion. Cost per LYS increased significantly upon application of higher discount rates, which may be used to reflect relatively high opportunity costs for health expenditures in developing countries with highly constrained resources and high overall mortality. CONCLUSION: Pharmacological cessation therapy can be highly cost effective as compared to other common medical interventions in low mortality, middle income countries, particularly if medications can be procured at low prices.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42).Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.

Tobacco and cannabis smoking cessation can lead to intoxication with clozapine or olanzapine

Plasma levels of clozapine and olanzapine are lower in smokers than in nonsmokers, which is mainly due to induction of cytochrome P4501A2 (CYP1A2) by some smoke constituents. Smoking cessation in patients treated with antipsychotic drugs that are CYP1A2 substrates may result in increased plasma levels of the drug and, consequently, in adverse drug effects. Two cases of patients who smoked tobacco and cannabis are reported. The first patient, who was receiving clozapine treatment, developed confusion after tobacco and cannabis smoking cessation, which was related to increased clozapine plasma levels. The second patient, who was receiving olanzapine treatment, showed important extrapyramidal motor symptoms after reducing his tobacco consumption. The clinical implication of these observations is that smoking patients treated with CYP1A2 substrate antipsychotics should regularly be monitored with regard to their smoking consumption in order to adjust doses in cases of a reduction or increase in smoking.