Varenicline, an alpha 4 beta 2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, vs sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking cessation - A randomized controlled trial

Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 08/2006; 296(1):47-55. DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.1.47
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) are linked to the reinforcing effects of nicotine and maintaining smoking behavior. Varenicline, a novel alpha4beta2 nAChR partial agonist, may be beneficial for smoking cessation.
To assess efficacy and safety of varenicline for smoking cessation compared with sustained-release bupropion (bupropion SR) and placebo.
Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and active-treatment-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial conducted at 19 US centers from June 19, 2003, to April 22, 2005. Participants were 1025 generally healthy smokers (> or =10 cigarettes/d) with fewer than 3 months of smoking abstinence in the past year, 18 to 75 years old, recruited via advertising.
Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive brief counseling and varenicline titrated to 1 mg twice per day (n = 352), bupropion SR titrated to 150 mg twice per day (n = 329), or placebo (n = 344) orally for 12 weeks, with 40 weeks of nondrug follow-up.
Primary outcome was the exhaled carbon monoxide-confirmed 4-week rate of continuous abstinence from smoking for weeks 9 through 12. A secondary outcome was the continuous abstinence rate for weeks 9 through 24 and weeks 9 through 52.
For weeks 9 through 12, the 4-week continuous abstinence rates were 44.0% for varenicline vs 17.7% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 3.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.70-5.50; P<.001) and vs 29.5% for bupropion SR (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.40-2.68; P<.001). Bupropion SR was also significantly more efficacious than placebo (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.38-2.89; P<.001). For weeks 9 through 52, the continuous abstinence rates were 21.9% for varenicline vs 8.4% for placebo (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.95-4.91; P<.001) and vs 16.1% for bupropion SR (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.99-2.17; P = .057). Varenicline reduced craving and withdrawal and, for those who smoked while receiving study drug, smoking satisfaction. No sex differences in efficacy for varenicline were observed. Varenicline was safe and generally well tolerated, with study drug discontinuation rates similar to those for placebo. The most common adverse events for participants receiving active-drug treatment were nausea (98 participants receiving varenicline [28.1%]) and insomnia (72 receiving bupropion SR [21.9%]).
Varenicline was significantly more efficacious than placebo for smoking cessation at all time points and significantly more efficacious than bupropion SR at the end of 12 weeks of drug treatment and at 24 weeks. Identifier: NCT00141206.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Some cigarette smokers may not be ready to quit immediately but may be willing to reduce cigarette consumption with the goal of quitting. To determine the efficacy and safety of varenicline for increasing smoking abstinence rates through smoking reduction. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational clinical trial with a 24-week treatment period and 28-week follow-up conducted between July 2011 and July 2013 at 61 centers in 10 countries. The 1510 participants were cigarette smokers who were not willing or able to quit smoking within the next month but willing to reduce smoking and make a quit attempt within the next 3 months. Participants were recruited through advertising. Twenty-four weeks of varenicline titrated to 1 mg twice daily or placebo with a reduction target of 50% or more in number of cigarettes smoked by 4 weeks, 75% or more by 8 weeks, and a quit attempt by 12 weeks. Primary efficacy end point was carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported abstinence during weeks 15 through 24. Secondary outcomes were carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported abstinence for weeks 21 through 24 and weeks 21 through 52. The varenicline group (n = 760) had significantly higher continuous abstinence rates during weeks 15 through 24 vs the placebo group (n = 750) (32.1% for the varenicline group vs 6.9% for the placebo group; risk difference (RD), 25.2% [95% CI, 21.4%-29.0%]; relative risk (RR), 4.6 [95% CI, 3.5-6.1]). The varenicline group had significantly higher continuous abstinence rates vs the placebo group during weeks 21 through 24 (37.8% for the varenicline group vs 12.5% for the placebo group; RD, 25.2% [95% CI, 21.1%-29.4%]; RR, 3.0 [95% CI, 2.4-3.7]) and weeks 21 through 52 (27.0% for the varenicline group vs 9.9% for the placebo group; RD, 17.1% [95% CI, 13.3%-20.9%]; RR, 2.7 [95% CI, 2.1-3.5]). Serious adverse events occurred in 3.7% of the varenicline group and 2.2% of the placebo group (P = .07). Among cigarette smokers not willing or able to quit within the next month but willing to reduce cigarette consumption and make a quit attempt at 3 months, use of varenicline for 24 weeks compared with placebo significantly increased smoking cessation rates at the end of treatment, and also at 1 year. Varenicline offers a treatment option for smokers whose needs are not addressed by clinical guidelines recommending abrupt smoking cessation. Identifier: NCT01370356.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 02/2015; 313(7):687-94. DOI:10.1001/jama.2015.280 · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Standard varenicline tartrate dosing was formulated to avoid adverse effects (primarily nausea), but some patients may be underdosed. To our knowledge, no evidence-based guidance exists for physicians considering increasing varenicline dose if there is no response to the standard dosage. To determine whether increasing varenicline dose in patients showing no response to the standard dosage improves treatment efficacy. In a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, 503 smokers attending a stop smoking clinic commenced varenicline use 3 weeks before their target quit date (TQD). Two hundred participants reporting no strong nausea, no clear reduction in smoking enjoyment, and less than 50% reduction in their baseline smoking on day 12 received additional tablets of varenicline or placebo. All participants began standard varenicline tartrate dosing, gradually increasing to 2 mg/d. Dose increases of twice-daily varenicline (0.5 mg) or placebo took place on days 12, 15, and 18 (up to a maximum of 5 mg/d). Participants rated their smoking enjoyment during the prequit period and withdrawal symptoms weekly for the first 4 weeks after the TQD. Continuous validated abstinence rates were assessed at 1, 4, and 12 weeks after the TQD. The dose increase reduced smoking enjoyment during the prequit period, with mean (SD) ratings of 1.7 (0.8) for varenicline vs 2.1 (0.7) for placebo (P = .001). It had no effect on the mean (SD) frequency of urges to smoke at 1 week after the TQD, their strength, or the severity of withdrawal symptoms: these ratings for varenicline vs placebo were 2.7 (1.1) vs 2.6 (0.9) (P = .90), 2.6 (1.1) vs 2.8 (1.0) (P = .36), and 1.5 (0.4) vs 1.6 (0.5) (P = .30), respectively. The dose increase also had no effect on smoking cessation rates for varenicline vs placebo at 1 week (37 [37.0%] vs 48 [48.0%], P = .14), 4 weeks (51 [51.0%] vs 59 [59.0%], P = .32), and 12 weeks (26 [26.0%] vs 23 [23.0%], P = .61) after the TQD. There was significantly more nausea (P < .001) and vomiting (P < .001) reported in the varenicline arm than in the placebo arm. Increasing varenicline dose in smokers with low response to the drug had no significant effect on tobacco withdrawal symptoms or smoking cessation. Physicians often consider increasing the medication dose if there is no response to the standard dosage. This approach may not work with varenicline. Identifier: NCT01206010.
    JAMA Internal Medicine 12/2014; DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6916 · 13.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cigarette craving usually occurs in conjunction with unpleasant feelings including stress, as part of a withdrawal syndrome. Progressive Muscle Relaxation (PMR), a behavioural technique used to reduce stress by concentrating on achieving muscle relaxation, may reduce levels of cigarette craving and other substance-related negative feelings and withdrawal symptoms.Methods Demographic and cigarette use data were collected from thirty-two experienced smokers at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand using the Semi-Structured Assessment for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism. Participants were asked to refrain from smoking for at least three hours before the visit (acute abstinence) and were randomly allocated to a one-session PMR group (n = 16) or a control activity group (e.g. reading newspaper, n = 16). The intervention group was instructed to practice PMR individually in a quiet, private, air-conditioned room for about 20 minutes. Craving, other substance-related feelings and autonomic nervous responses (e.g. blood pressure and pulse rate) were assessed immediately before and after the one-session intervention.ResultsThere were no differences in demographics, cigarette use/dependence, and baseline craving characteristics between the PMR and control groups. However, the control group had higher levels of high and paranoia feeling, and pulse rate than the PMR group at baseline. After practicing PMR, but not after a control activity, smokers undergoing acute abstinence had significantly lower levels of cigarette craving, withdrawal symptoms and systolic blood pressure than at baseline. After controlling for baseline differences, abstaining smokers using PMR had lower levels of cigarette craving, withdrawal symptoms and systolic blood pressure than smokers who undertook a control activity.ConclusionsPMR significantly reduces cigarette craving, withdrawal symptoms and blood pressure in smokers undergoing acute abstinence. PMR may be used as an adjunct to cigarette dependency treatments.
    Behavior Therapy 11/2014; 46(2). DOI:10.1016/j.beth.2014.10.002 · 2.43 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 28, 2014