Suppr超能文献

戒烟药物和电子烟:系统评价、网络荟萃分析和成本效益分析。

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

机构信息

Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Faculty of Life Sciences, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

出版信息

Health Technol Assess. 2021 Oct;25(59):1-224. doi: 10.3310/hta25590.

Abstract

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 ; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

摘要

背景

吸烟是导致早逝的主要原因之一。伐伦克林[Champix(英国),辉瑞欧洲 MA EEIG,布鲁塞尔,比利时;或畅沛(美国),辉瑞公司,使命,KS,美国]、安非他酮(Zyban;葛兰素史克,布伦特福德,英国)和尼古丁替代疗法是英国戒烟的许可辅助手段。尽管未获得许可,电子烟也可能用于英国的戒烟服务。人们对这些药物和电子烟的安全性表示担忧。

目的

确定戒烟药物和电子烟的临床效果、安全性和成本效益。

设计

系统评价、网络荟萃分析和成本效益分析,由网络荟萃分析结果提供信息。

设置

初级保健诊所、医院、诊所、大学、工作场所、疗养院或养老院。

参与者

使用英国许可的戒烟疗法和/或电子烟的年龄≥18 岁的吸烟者。

干预措施

伐伦克林、安非他酮和尼古丁替代疗法作为单一疗法以及标准、低或高剂量联合治疗、联合尼古丁替代疗法和电子烟单一疗法。

主要结局测量

效果——持续或持续的戒烟。安全性——严重不良事件、主要不良心血管事件和主要不良神经精神事件。

数据来源

十个数据库、相关研究文章的参考文献列表和以前的综述。搜索从成立开始进行,直到 2017 年 3 月 16 日,并于 2019 年 2 月 19 日进行了更新。

审查方法

三位审查员筛选了搜索结果。数据由一位审查员提取,风险偏倚由一位审查员评估,并由另一位审查员检查。对有效性和安全性结果进行网络荟萃分析。使用收益戒烟对结果模型的修改版本评估成本效益。

结果

大多数单一疗法和联合治疗与安慰剂相比,在实现持续戒烟方面更有效。伐伦克林标准加尼古丁替代疗法标准(比值比 5.75,95%可信区间 2.27 至 14.90)在持续戒烟方面排名第一,其次是电子烟低剂量(比值比 3.22,95%可信区间 0.97 至 12.60),尽管这些估计值具有高度不确定性。我们发现咨询和依赖的效果修饰,接受咨询的吸烟者比未接受咨询的吸烟者更有可能持续戒烟,而平均依赖得分较高的参与者持续戒烟的几率更高。我们发现安非他酮标准与安慰剂相比增加了严重不良事件的几率(比值比 1.27,95%可信区间 1.04 至 1.58)。干预措施之间在主要不良心血管事件方面没有差异。与安非他酮标准相比,随机分配给伐伦克林标准的吸烟者发生主要不良神经精神事件的几率更高(比值比 1.43,95%可信区间 1.02 至 2.09)。关于最具成本效益的干预措施,存在高度不确定性,尽管与尼古丁替代疗法低相比,所有干预措施均具有成本效益,在 20,000 英镑/质量调整生命年的阈值下。电子烟低在基本情况下似乎最具成本效益,其次是伐伦克林标准加尼古丁替代疗法标准。当排除主要不良神经精神事件的影响时,伐伦克林标准加尼古丁替代疗法标准是最具成本效益的,其次是伐伦克林低加尼古丁替代疗法标准。当将限定于英国的许可干预措施时,尼古丁替代疗法标准是最具成本效益的,其次是伐伦克林标准。

局限性

活性干预措施之间的比较几乎完全依赖于间接证据。由于确定的不良事件数量较少,结果不够精确。

结论

联合治疗是最有效的、安全的和具有成本效益的戒烟治疗选择之一。尽管尼古丁替代疗法和伐伦克林标准剂量联合治疗是最有效的治疗方法,但目前在英国未获得许可使用。

未来工作

研究人员应检查这些治疗方法与咨询一起使用,并继续研究电子烟与尼古丁替代疗法等活性干预措施相比在长期戒烟方面的有效性和安全性。

研究注册

本研究由英国国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助,并将在 ; 第 25 卷,第 59 期。请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站以获取进一步的项目信息。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验