Karine Suissa1, Jordan Larivière1, Mark J Eisenberg1, Maria Eberg1, Genevieve C Gore1, Roland Grad1, Lawrence Joseph1, Pauline M Reynier1, Kristian B Filion2. 1. From the Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health (K.S., M.J.E., L.J., K.B.F.), Faculty of Medicine (J.L., M.J.E., K.B.F.), Division of Cardiology, Jewish General Hospital (M.J.E.), Schulich Library of Science and Engineering (G.C.G.), Department of Family Medicine (R.G.), Division of Clinical Epidemiology (L.J.), and Department of Medicine (K.B.F.), McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; and Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (K.S., J.L., M.J.E., M.E., P.M.R., K.B.F.). 2. From the Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health (K.S., M.J.E., L.J., K.B.F.), Faculty of Medicine (J.L., M.J.E., K.B.F.), Division of Cardiology, Jewish General Hospital (M.J.E.), Schulich Library of Science and Engineering (G.C.G.), Department of Family Medicine (R.G.), Division of Clinical Epidemiology (L.J.), and Department of Medicine (K.B.F.), McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; and Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (K.S., J.L., M.J.E., M.E., P.M.R., K.B.F.). kristian.filion@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation interventions are well established, their efficacy and safety in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and behavioral smoking cessation interventions in CVD patients via a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and behavioral therapies in CVD patients. Outcomes of interest were smoking abstinence at 6 and 12 months, defined using the most rigorous criteria reported. Data were pooled across studies for direct comparisons using random-effects models. Network meta-analysis using a graph-theoretical approach was used to generate the indirect comparisons. Seven pharmacotherapy randomized controlled trials (n=2809) and 17 behavioral intervention randomized controlled trials (n=4666) met our inclusion criteria. Our network meta-analysis revealed that varenicline (relative risk [RR]: 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-5.21) and bupropion (RR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.01) were associated with greater abstinence than placebo. The evidence about nicotine replacement therapies was inconclusive (RR: 1.22; 95% CI, 0.72-2.06). Telephone therapy (RR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.15-1.88) and individual counseling (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.17-2.28) were both more efficacious than usual care, whereas in-hospital behavioral interventions were not (RR: 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78-1.43). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests varenicline and bupropion, as well as individual and telephone counseling, are efficacious for smoking cessation in CVD patients.
BACKGROUND: Although the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation interventions are well established, their efficacy and safety in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and behavioral smoking cessation interventions in CVD patients via a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and behavioral therapies in CVD patients. Outcomes of interest were smoking abstinence at 6 and 12 months, defined using the most rigorous criteria reported. Data were pooled across studies for direct comparisons using random-effects models. Network meta-analysis using a graph-theoretical approach was used to generate the indirect comparisons. Seven pharmacotherapy randomized controlled trials (n=2809) and 17 behavioral intervention randomized controlled trials (n=4666) met our inclusion criteria. Our network meta-analysis revealed that varenicline (relative risk [RR]: 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-5.21) and bupropion (RR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.01) were associated with greater abstinence than placebo. The evidence about nicotine replacement therapies was inconclusive (RR: 1.22; 95% CI, 0.72-2.06). Telephone therapy (RR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.15-1.88) and individual counseling (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.17-2.28) were both more efficacious than usual care, whereas in-hospital behavioral interventions were not (RR: 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78-1.43). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests varenicline and bupropion, as well as individual and telephone counseling, are efficacious for smoking cessation in CVD patients.
Authors: Manish K Jha; Arman Qamar; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Dennis S Charney; James W Murrough Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jessie Kittle; Renato D Lopes; Mingyan Huang; Marsha L Marquess; Matthew D Wilson; John Ascher; Alok Krishen; Vic Hasselblad; Brad J Kolls; Matthew T Roe; Darren K McGuire; Stuart D Russell; Kenneth W Mahaffey Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Irene Pericot-Valverde; Rebecca J Elliott; Jeff S Priest; Trace Barret; Jin H Yoon; Charles C Miller; Chizimuzo T C Okoli; Ilana Haliwa; Philip A Ades; Diann E Gaalema Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Sarah B Windle; Payam Dehghani; Nathalie Roy; Wayne Old; François R Grondin; Iqbal Bata; Ayman Iskander; Claude Lauzon; Nalin Srivastava; Adam Clarke; Daniel Cassavar; Danielle Dion; Herbert Haught; Shamir R Mehta; Jean-François Baril; Charles Lambert; Mina Madan; Beth L Abramson; Mark J Eisenberg Journal: CMAJ Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 8.262