Suissa Karine, Larivière Jordan, Eisenberg Mark J, Eberg Maria, Gore Genevieve C, Grad Roland, Joseph Lawrence, Reynier Pauline M, Filion Kristian B
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.).
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017 Jan;10(1). doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002458.
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.
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).
Our meta-analysis suggests varenicline and bupropion, as well as individual and telephone counseling, are efficacious for smoking cessation in CVD patients.
尽管戒烟干预措施的有效性和安全性已得到充分证实,但其在心血管疾病(CVD)患者中的有效性和安全性仍不明确。本研究的目的是通过对随机对照试验的荟萃分析,评估药物和行为戒烟干预措施在CVD患者中的有效性和安全性。
检索了EMBASE、PsycINFO、MEDLINE、PubMed和Cochrane烟草成瘾专业注册库,以查找评估戒烟药物疗法和行为疗法在CVD患者中有效性的随机对照试验。感兴趣的结局是6个月和12个月时的戒烟情况,使用报告的最严格标准进行定义。使用随机效应模型对各研究的数据进行汇总,以进行直接比较。采用基于图论方法的网络荟萃分析来进行间接比较。七项药物疗法随机对照试验(n = 2809)和17项行为干预随机对照试验(n = 4666)符合我们的纳入标准。我们的网络荟萃分析显示,伐尼克兰(相对风险[RR]:2.64;95%置信区间[CI],1.34 - 5.21)和安非他酮(RR:1.42;95% CI,1.01 - 2.01)与比安慰剂更高的戒烟率相关。关于尼古丁替代疗法的证据尚无定论(RR:1.22;95% CI,0.72 - 2.06)。电话疗法(RR:1.47;95% CI:1.15 - 1.88)和个体咨询(RR:1.64,95% CI:1.17 - 2.28)均比常规护理更有效,而住院行为干预则不然(RR:1.05;95% CI,0.78 - 1.43)。
我们的荟萃分析表明,伐尼克兰、安非他酮以及个体和电话咨询对CVD患者戒烟有效。