Suppr超能文献

抗抑郁药戒烟。

Antidepressants for smoking cessation.

机构信息

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Departments of Psychological Sciences & Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 May 24;5(5):CD000031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000031.pub6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

摘要

背景

抗抑郁药的药理学特征和机制各不相同。然而,它们之所以可能有助于人们戒烟,通常有以下共同原因:尼古丁戒断可能导致短期情绪低落,而抗抑郁药可能缓解这种情况;一些抗抑郁药可能对尼古丁成瘾的神经通路或受体有特定的影响。

目的

评估具有抗抑郁特性的药物在帮助长期戒烟方面的疗效、危害和耐受性,这些药物适用于吸烟的人群。

检索方法

我们检索了 Cochrane 烟草成瘾组的专业注册库,最近一次检索是在 2022 年 4 月 29 日。

纳入标准

我们纳入了比较抗抑郁药物与安慰剂或无药理治疗、替代药物治疗或不同药物使用的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验纳入了吸烟人群。我们排除了疗效分析随访时间少于 6 个月的试验。我们纳入了随访时间长度不一的试验,以评估危害。

数据收集和分析

我们使用标准的 Cochrane 方法提取数据并评估偏倚风险。我们的主要结局指标是至少 6 个月随访后的戒烟率。我们使用了每个试验中可用的最严格的戒断定义,并在可用的情况下使用生物验证的率。我们的次要结局指标是危害和耐受性结局,包括不良事件(AE)、严重不良事件(SAE)、精神科不良事件、癫痫发作、过量、自杀企图、自杀死亡、全因死亡率和因治疗而退出试验的人数。我们根据需要进行了荟萃分析。

主要结果

我们共纳入了 124 项研究(48832 名参与者),其中 10 项新研究加入了本次更新版本。大多数研究招募的是来自社区或戒烟诊所的成年人;四项研究专注于青少年(参与者年龄在 12 至 21 岁之间)。我们判断 34 项研究存在高偏倚风险;然而,仅分析低偏倚或不确定偏倚的研究并不改变对结果的临床解释。有高确定性证据表明,与安慰剂或无药理治疗相比,安非他酮增加了戒烟率(RR 1.60,95%CI 1.49 至 1.72;I = 16%;50 项研究,18577 名参与者)。有中等确定性证据表明,安非他酮联合伐伦克林可能比伐伦克林单独使用产生更高的戒烟率(RR 1.21,95%CI 0.95 至 1.55;I = 15%;3 项研究,1057 名参与者)。然而,没有足够的证据确定安非他酮联合尼古丁替代疗法(NRT)是否比 NRT 单独使用能产生更好的戒烟率(RR 1.17,95%CI 0.95 至 1.44;I = 43%;15 项研究,4117 名参与者;低确定性证据)。有中等确定性证据表明,与安慰剂或无药理治疗相比,服用安非他酮的参与者更有可能报告 SAE(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.90 至 1.48;I = 0%;23 项研究,10958 名参与者)。当比较联合使用安非他酮和 NRT 与 NRT 单独使用的 SAE 时,结果也不精确,CI 也包含无差异(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.90 至 1.48;I = 0%;23 项研究,10958 名参与者)。当比较联合使用安非他酮和 NRT 与 NRT 单独使用的 SAE 时,结果也不精确,CI 也包含无差异(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.90 至 1.48;I = 0%;23 项研究,10958 名参与者)。当比较联合使用安非他酮和 NRT 与 NRT 单独使用的 SAE 时,结果也不精确,CI 也包含无差异(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.90 至 1.48;I = 0%;23 项研究,10958 名参与者)。当比较联合使用安非他酮和 NRT 与 NRT 单独使用的 SAE 时,结果也不精确,CI 也包含无差异(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.90 至 1.48;I = 0%;23 项研究,10958 名参与者)。当比较联合使用安非他酮和 NRT 与 NRT 单独使用的 SAE 时,结果也不精确,CI 也包含无差异(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.90 至 1.48;I = 0%;23 项研究,10958 名参与者)。我们还发现,与安慰剂相比,安非他酮(RR 2.03,95%CI 1.48 至 2.78;I = 16%;6 项研究,975 名参与者)和安非他酮(RR 1.30,95%CI 0.93 至 1.82;I = 0%;3 项研究,417 名参与者)可能有助于戒烟,尽管这一结果存在不精确性。研究结果表明,抗抑郁药,主要是安非他酮和去甲替林,可能对当前或以前患有抑郁症的人有特殊益处,但证据稀少且不一致。

作者结论

有高确定性证据表明,安非他酮可以帮助长期戒烟。然而,安非他酮可能会增加 SAE(与安慰剂相比,为中等确定性证据)。与接受安慰剂或无药理治疗的人相比,服用安非他酮的人更有可能停止治疗。去甲替林似乎也能提高与安慰剂相比的戒烟率,但安非他酮可能更有效。有证据表明,安非他酮可能与单剂型 NRT 一样成功地帮助人们戒烟,但不如 NRT 和伐伦克林有效。在大多数情况下,数据的缺乏使得难以就危害和耐受性得出结论。进一步研究抗抑郁药与安慰剂相比的疗效不太可能改变我们对该药物的影响的解释,没有明确的理由将其用于戒烟治疗,而不是其他已批准的戒烟治疗方法,即尼古丁替代疗法和伐伦克林。然而,重要的是,未来关于抗抑郁药用于戒烟的研究应测量和报告危害和耐受性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/aa0d/10207863/fe2867839afb/tCD000031-FIG-01.jpg

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