Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:12:07.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Randomised Controlled Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Step-up and Step-down Varenicline Therapy for Smoking Cessation: A Study Protocol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2017

Aaron D. Drovandi ,
Peta-Ann Teague ,
Beverley D. Glass  and
Bunmi Malau-Aduli
Aaron D. Drovandi*
Affiliation:
College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Peta-Ann Teague
Affiliation:
College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Beverley D. Glass
Affiliation:
College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Bunmi Malau-Aduli
Affiliation:
College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Aaron Drovandi, (MPharmPH) – Pharmacy Lecturer, Building 047, Pharmacy, 1 James Cook Drive, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4814, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Varenicline remains the most effective medication for smoking cessation; however, discontinuation as a result of adverse events negatively impacts medication adherence, and the likelihood of a quit attempt being successful. Post-treatment cravings and withdrawal symptoms may also occur, increasing the likelihood of treatment failure, due to lapse and relapse after achieving initial abstinence. This protocol details a trial investigating changes in the effectiveness and tolerability of varenicline, when an extended step-up and step-down regimen are used.

Methods: A phase four, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled single-centre study with a treatment period of 16 weeks, and follow-up period of 12 weeks will be conducted. Up to 201 participants will be enrolled and allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to a placebo-matching control group, step-up, or step-down intervention group, all receiving behavioural counselling and quitting advice. Participants will be contacted weekly during treatment and fortnightly during follow-up. Eligible participants are smokers over 18 years old, willing to quit smoking, are able to attend clinic visits, and have no uncontrolled or serious medical issues. Primary outcome measures are comparisons of biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence rates, 7-day point prevalence abstinence rates, and the frequency, severity and duration of adverse events, cravings and withdrawal symptoms. Secondary outcome measures are participant adherence to the study medication throughout treatment, and comparisons of changes in smoking satisfaction and reward. Effects of each regimen on smoking cessation will be assessed by logistic regression, with survival analyses used for a more precise estimate of when cessation occurs. Primary endpoints will then be compared using a general linear model. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616000802404p

Type
Protocol
Information
Journal of Smoking Cessation , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 179 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balmford, J., Borland, R., Hammond, D., & Cummings, K. M. (2011). Adherence to and reasons for premature discontinuation from stop-smoking medications: Data from the ITC four-country survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 13 (2), 94–102Google Scholar
Cahill, K., Lindson-Hawley, N., Thomas, K. H., Fanshawe, T. R., & Lancaster, T. (2016). Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (5), CD006103.Google Scholar
Cahill, K., Stevens, S., Perera, R., & Lancaster, T. (2013). Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: An overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (5), CD009329.Google Scholar
Cappelleri, J. C., Bushmakin, A. G., Baker, C. L., Merikle, E., Olufade, A. O., & Gilbert, D. G. (2007). Confirmatory factor analyses and reliability of the modified cigarette evaluation questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors, 32 (5), 912–923.Google Scholar
Catz, S. L., Jack, L. M., McClure, J. B., Javitz, H. S., Deprey, M., Zbikowski, S. M. et al. (2011). Adherence to varenicline in the COMPASS smoking cessation intervention trial. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 13 (5), 361–368.Google Scholar
Chan, A. W., Tetzlaff, J. W., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P. C., Krleža-Jerić, K. et al. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158 (3), 200–207.Google Scholar
Coe, J. W., Brooks, P. R., Vetelino, M. G., Wirtz, M. C., Arnold, E. P., Huang, J. et al. (2005). Varenicline: An α4β2 nicotinic receptor partial agonist for smoking cessation. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 48 (10), 3474–3477.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (pp. 20–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Drovandi, A. D., Chen, C. C., & Glass, B. D. (2016). Adverse effects cause varenicline discontinuation: A meta-analysis. Current Drug Safety, 11, 78–85Google Scholar
Drovandi, A. D., Teague, P. A., Glass, B. D., & Malau-Aduli, B. (2017). A systematic review investigating the impact of modified varenicline regimens on smoking cessation. Journal of Smoking Cessation, 1–11.Google Scholar
Fiore, M. C., Jaen, C. R., Baker, T., Bailey, W. C., Benowitz, N. L., Curry, S. J. et al. (2008). Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
Hajek, P., McRobbie, H. J., Myers, K. E., Stapleton, J., & Dhangi, A. (2011). Use of varenicline for 4 weeks before quitting smoking: Decrease in ad lib smoking and increase in smoking cessation rates. Archives of Internal Medicine, 171 (8), 770–777.Google Scholar
Hawk, L. W., Ashare, R. L., Lohnes, S. F., Schlienz, M. A., Rhodes, J. D., Tiffany, S. T. et al. (2012). The effects of extended pre-quit varenicline treatment on smoking behaviour and short-term abstinence: A randomized clinical trial. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 91 (2), 172–180.Google Scholar
Haywood, A., & Glass, B. D. (2016). Evidence of stability of medicines repackaged in compliance aids: A review. Current Drug Safety, 11 (1), 69–77.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. R., & Hatsukami, D. (1986). Signs and symptoms of tobacco withdrawal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 43 (3), 289–294.Google Scholar
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16 (9), 606–613.Google Scholar
Liberman, J. N., Lichtenfeld, M. J., Galaznik, A., Mastey, V., Harnett, J., Zou, K. H. et al. (2013). Adherence to varenicline and associated smoking cessation in a community-based patient setting. Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy, 19 (2), 125–131.Google Scholar
Osman, A., Bagge, C. L., Guitierrez, P. M., Konick, L. C., Kooper, B. A., & Barrios, F. X. (2001). The suicidal behaviours questionnaire-revised (SBQ-R): Validation with clinical and nonclinical samples. Assessment, 8 (4), 443–454.Google Scholar
Rigotti, N. A., Pipe, A. L., Benowitz, N. L., Arteaga, C., Garza, D., & Tonstad, S. (2010). Efficacy and safety of varenicline for smoking cessation in patients with cardiovascular disease. Circulation, 121, 221–229.Google Scholar
Tonstad, S., Tǿnnesen, P., Hajek, P., Williams, K. E., Billing, C. B., & Reeves, K. R. (2006). Effect of maintenance therapy with varenicline on smoking cessation: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296 (1), 64–71.Google Scholar
Williams, K. E., Reeves, K. R., Billing, C. B. Jr., Pennington, A. M., & Gong, J. (2007). A double-blind study evaluating the long-term safety of varenicline for smoking cessation. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 23 (4), 793–801.Google Scholar