Effectiveness of smoking cessation therapies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. <>
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.32). 12/2006; 6:300. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-300
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (approximately 3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons.
We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55-1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60-1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37-1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41-1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77-2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72-2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20-6.42). Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12-4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65-5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22-2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22-2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies.
NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives The National Health Service (NHS) Stop Smoking Service (SSS) is an extremely cost-effective method of enabling smoking cessation. However, the SSS is only used by a minority of smokers. Developing interventions to maintain service attendance may help to increase the number of quitters. This study pilots an intervention aimed at maintaining attendance by (1) increasing motivation to attend through a booklet providing evidence of service effectiveness and (2) strengthening the link between motivation to attend and attendance through forming an implementation intention. DesignA factorial randomized controlled trial. MethodsA total of 160 newly enrolled smokers at the Surrey NHS SSS were recruited and randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) standard care (SC), (2) SC+effectiveness booklet, (3) SC+implementation intention, and (4) SC+effectiveness booklet+implementation intention. The outcome measures included attendance at the SSS and the 4-week quit rate. ResultsThe booklet increased service attendance (OR=2.93, p<.01, 95% CI=1.45-5.93; Number Needed to Treat=3.3) but had no impact on the 4-week quit rate (OR=1.55, 95% CI=0.75-3.21). Forming an implementation intention had no impact on service attendance or the 4-week quit rate. Attending the service was associated with a higher 4-week quit rate (=87.52, p<.001). Conclusions Presenting information about the effectiveness of the service improved service attendance. A larger trial now needs to evaluate whether this intervention can also increase the quit rate.
    British Journal of Health Psychology 12/2013; 19(4). DOI:10.1111/bjhp.12078 · 2.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this 12-month prospective study was to assess the adjunctive effect of smoking cessation in non-surgical periodontal therapy of subjects with severe chronic periodontitis. Of the 201 subjects enrolled from a smoking cessation clinic, 93 were eligible and received non-surgical periodontal treatment and concurrent smoking cessation treatment. Periodontal maintenance was performed every 3 months. Full-mouth periodontal examination in six sites per tooth was performed by a calibrated examiner, blinded to smoking status, at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after non-surgical periodontal treatment. Furthermore, expired air carbon monoxide concentration measurements and interviews based on a structured questionnaire were performed in order to collect demographic and smoking data. Of the 93 eligible subjects, 52 remained in the study after 1 year. Of these, 17 quit smoking and 35 continued smoking or oscillated. After 1 year, only quitters presented significant clinical attachment gain (p=0.04). However, there were no differences between the groups regarding clinical attachment level, probing depth, bleeding on probing and plaque index after 1 year (p>0.05). Smoking cessation promoted clinical attachment gain in chronic periodontitis subjects from a smoking cessation clinic after 1 year of follow-up.
    Journal Of Clinical Periodontology 06/2011; 38(6):562-71. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01723.x · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Varenicline (Champix) was approved in France in 2006 as an aid to smoking cessation treatment. Although there is a consensus on its efficacy, its tolerability is debatable. This article sought to clarify its tolerability profile in current medical practice. This retrospective study examined tolerance of varenicline prescribed to smokers who wanted to quit smoking in 10 "Stop-Smoking" consultation centers around France. It included all patients who used varenicline during the one-year (February 12, 2007, to February 12, 2008) study period. At least one adverse event (AE) was reported by 45.9% of the 338 patients, with a total of 343. AE incidence was higher among women (51.5%) than men (40.5%) (OR=1.56, 95% CI: 0.99-2.47, p=0.026). There were 32 unexpected AEs, that is, not listed in the initial new drug application, reported by 23 patients, including 19 psychiatric AEs. Of the 8 serious AEs, 3 were of neurological origin. This retrospective study confirmed the tolerability issues for varenicline, identified during the phase II-phase III development program and confirmed afterwards. It raises the following questions: Should varenicline be prescribed as a second-line therapy? Is there a patient type for which varenicline would be more - or less - appropriate? Can the tolerability profile be improved by reducing dosage while maintaining the level of efficacy or by co-administering symptomatic treatment more systematically? These are questions that new studies evaluating varenicline tolerability should answer.
    La Presse Médicale 10/2009; 39(1):e17-24. DOI:10.1016/j.lpm.2009.07.016 · 1.17 Impact Factor


Available from