Pharmacovigilance Assessment of Cardiac Implications of Nicotine Replacement Therapy Among Smokers

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-180
Author(s):  
Oluwafemi Olawuyi ◽  
Kathleen Mathieson

Purpose: The purpose of this quantitative comparative study was to examine the possible relationship between nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and cardiac disorder risk by comparing the rates of cardiac disorder risk of NRT with cardiac disorder risk of non-replacement drugs among smokers seeking smoking cessation. Methods: The study used retrospective quantitative design, which involved the collection of secondary data from the adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database of the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Rates of cardiac disorder were compared between the NRT group and non- NRT (varenicline and bupropion) group. Statistical analyses involved using a 2x2 contingency table and logistic regression to calculate odds ratio (reporting odds ratio (ROR)). Results and Discussion: Unadjusted ROR was 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28, 0.70). With age and sex as confounding factors, the smokers in the NRT group still had lower odds of having cardiac disorder risk than the non-NRT group (adjusted ROR=0.44, 95% CI 0.28, 0.70). Conclusion: Our study findings showed lower cardiac disorder risk with the NRT group compared to the non-NRT (varenicline and bupropion) group. While the study did not aim to undermine either using NRT or non-NRT for smoking cessation therapy to prevent smoking illness, the study results offer informed findings that could potentially improve current smoking cessation management using NRT intervention among smokers and enhance smokers’ health outcome. Despite the negative signal detection of cardiac disorder risk with NRT as compared to non-NRT in final findings, we still recommend further research on the causal relationship between NRT and non-NRT and cardiac disorder risk.

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 205031211877795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yumi Motooka ◽  
Toshinobu Matsui ◽  
Rachel M Slaton ◽  
Ryogo Umetsu ◽  
Akiho Fukuda ◽  
...  

Objectives: Several smoking cessation treatments (nicotine replacement therapy and non-nicotine prescription medication) and electronic cigarettes are widely used. We evaluated the adverse events related to smoking cessation treatments and electronic cigarettes in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database. Methods: We analyzed reports of adverse events associated with smoking cessation treatment and electronic cigarettes terms dated between January 2004 and December 2016. We used the reporting odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals to detect a signal for each adverse event. Results: In total, 8,867,135 reports in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database were analyzed. The numbers of adverse events for nicotine replacement therapy (transdermal, buccal, oral, and respiratory administration) were 1673, 1016, 425, and 56, respectively. Nicotine replacement therapy (transdermal, buccal, and oral) demonstrated adverse events of nausea, nicotine dependence, and dizziness. For nicotine (transdermal) exposure, the top 5 adverse events reported were nausea (149 cases, reporting odds ratio: 2.28 (95% confidence interval: 1.92–2.69)), dizziness (132 cases, reporting odds ratio: 3.04 (95% confidence interval: 2.54–3.63)), application site erythema (108 cases, reporting odds ratio: 32.52 (95% confidence interval: 26.74–39.55)), headache (98 cases, reporting odds ratio: 1.84 (95% confidence interval: 1.50–2.25)), and dyspnea (94 cases, reporting odds ratio: 1.93 (95% confidence interval: 1.57–2.38)). Many cases of improper use of nicotine replacement therapies were reported. Nausea, depression, abnormal dreams, insomnia, and other adverse events were reported for varenicline. Insomnia, rash, anxiety, and dizziness were reported for bupropion. We observed electronic cigarettes–related adverse events such as dizziness, dyspnea, nausea, heart rate increased, and tremor. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that an association exists between nicotine-related adverse events and nicotine replacement therapy. Healthcare professionals should closely monitor smokers trying to quit nicotine use for the misuse of nicotine replacement therapy. These findings may be informative to healthcare professionals in order to improve the management of smoking cessation treatment.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (9) ◽  
pp. 979-985
Author(s):  
Matthew Clyde ◽  
Andrew Pipe ◽  
Charl Els ◽  
Robert Reid ◽  
Angel Fu ◽  
...  

Introduction: It has been suggested that the effectiveness of nicotine replacement smoking cessation pharmacotherapy may be enhanced by assessing rates of nicotine metabolism using the nicotine metabolite ratio – which reflects differences in the activity of the CYP2A6 hepatic enzyme – and titrating doses appropriately. To date, supporting evidence is equivocal, with little information regarding the assessment and effectiveness of the nicotine metabolite ratio among smokers with psychiatric conditions. Methods: The nicotine metabolite ratio of 499 smokers from the FLEX trial was determined using urine samples obtained at baseline. They were randomized to receive either: standard transdermal nicotine (nicotine replacement therapy); extended nicotine replacement therapy + adjunct nicotine agent; or varenicline. Primary cessation outcomes were seven-day point prevalence at 5, 10, 22, and 52 weeks post-target quit date, comparing across treatment and psychiatric status. Our principal analysis employed logistic regression (outcome: abstinence), using slow metabolizers as the reference category. Results: No differences were observed by nicotine metabolite ratio classification (slow, moderate, fast) with respect to any demographic or smoking-related variables. Nicotine metabolite ratio class did not predict smoking cessation in either the overall sample, or by treatment condition at any time-point (week 52 moderate metabolizers: odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval (0.68–2.63), p=0.394; fast metabolizers: odds ratio 1.04 (0.56–1.91), p=0. 906). Conclusion: Our results did not find any associations between nicotine metabolite ratio and cessation outcomes among smokers using nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline with and without lifetime psychiatric conditions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (59) ◽  
pp. 1-224
Author(s):  
Kyla H Thomas ◽  
Michael N Dalili ◽  
José A López-López ◽  
Edna Keeney ◽  
David Phillippo ◽  
...  

Background Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes. Objectives To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes. Design Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results. Setting Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes. Participants Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes. Interventions Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies. Main outcome measures Effectiveness – continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety – serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events. Data sources Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019. Review methods Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model. Results Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard. Limitations Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified. Conclusions Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK. Future work Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika E. Slovinec D'Angelo ◽  
Robert D. Reid ◽  
Stephen Hotz ◽  
Jane Irvine ◽  
Roanne J. Segal ◽  
...  

Purpose. To determine whether a stress management (SM) program could improve cessation rates when added to usual care (UC) among women attempting to quit smoking. Design. Randomized controlled trial conducted during a 12-month period. Setting. Smoking cessation clinics located within two tertiary care centers in Ottawa, Ontario. Subjects. A total of 332 women smokers 19 years or older who smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day were recruited via advertisements. Intervention. Either UC (physician advice and nicotine replacement therapy) or UC plus an eight-session group SM training program (coping skills development relevant to smoking-specific and generic stressors). Measures. Point prevalence abstinence 2 and 12 months after study intake. A secondary outcome of interest was change in perceived stress during the intervention period. Results. On an intent-to-treat basis, the addition of SM to UC had no incremental effect on 2-or 12-month abstinence rates. Abstinence rates at 2 months were 26.2% vs. 31.7% in the UC and SM groups, respectively (p = .59). At 12 months, the rates were 18.5% vs. 20.7% (p = .86). When quit rates were compared including only participants who demonstrated adequate adherence to the intervention protocol, there was a significant difference between the UC and SM groups at 2 months (34.9% vs. 48.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–3.42; p = .04) but not at 12 months (23.0% vs. 28.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, .64–2.41; p = .53). There was a significant reduction in perceived stress from preintervention to postintervention; however, this decrease was not moderated by group assignment. Conclusion. The addition of SM in our setting neither increased abstinence rates nor reduced perceived stress over and above UC in women motivated to quit smoking. Poor attendance at the SM intervention undermined its effectiveness.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 01-03
Author(s):  
Charl Woo

Evidence shows that successful treatment of nicotine addiction improves mortality, despite age at cessation. The extreme hazards of smoking stress the importance of patient-physician discussion that is a significant factor in tobacco cessation. Discussion alone and other methods such as “cold turkey” have proven to have low efficacy at cessation which has led to the development nicotine replacement therapy to help augment cessation.


BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S92-S93
Author(s):  
Flensham Mohamed ◽  
Mohamed Bader

AimsAudit carried out to assess whether or not patients had been asked about their smoking status during admission onto an acute adult mental health ward, as well as if they had received any smoking cessation advice or offered nicotine replacement therapy.Background•Physical health outcomes in patients with serious mental illness (SMI) are consisitently worse than the general public This is due to multiple factors; adverse effects of medication (including metabolic syndromes with psychotropics) as well as poor lifestyle factors such as smoking status•Patients with an SMI are 3–6 times more likely to die due to coronary artery disease. 70% of patients in inpatient psychiatric units are smokers, a strong independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease.•Smoking cessation is a potent modifiable risk factor that can prevent mortality and reduce morbidity.MethodA cross-sectional review of all 34 inpatients across four general adult acute psychiatric wards.Patient records were explored using the Aneuran Bevan Health Board admission proformas to identify evidence of smoking status and whether advice was offered.ResultSmoker but not given cessation advice n = 13 (38%)Not asked about smoking n = 11 (32%)Smoker and given cessation advice n = 4 (12%)Non-smoker n = 6 (18%)ConclusionPatients were asked about their smoking status the majority of the time (68%) but provision of advice or nicotine replacement therapy was only done in 14% of potential smokers (identified smokers and patients not asked about smoking status).A consideration to be taken into account is that on admission, a patient's physical health status may be unknown, with the additional difficulty of a patient's acute distress complicating the physical examination, smoking status and modification of patient's smoking status may not be the highest priory in that context.Data regarding asking about smoking were different amongst wards, potentially signifying differences between assessors willingness to ask about smoking status.There is a lack of smoking cessation literature available on the wards and patients are often unaware of what options are available to quit smoking.The audit simply determined whether or not assessors were documenting smoking status, it does not measure the quantity or quality of smoking cessation advice provided.Further quality improvement projects should be launched, with focus groups as the intial step at further investigating inpatient smoking rates, as well as attempting to reduce them in a more systemic way.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document