Nicotine preloading for smoking cessation: the Preloading RCT.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine preloading means using nicotine replacement therapy prior to a quit date while smoking normally. The aim is to reduce the drive to smoke, thereby reducing cravings for smoking after quit day, which are the main cause of early relapse. A prior systematic review showed inconclusive and heterogeneous evidence that preloading was effective and little evidence of the mechanism of action, with no cost-effectiveness data. OBJECTIVES: To assess (1) the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of nicotine preloading in a routine NHS setting relative to usual care, (2) the mechanisms of the action of preloading and (3) the cost-effectiveness of preloading. DESIGN: Open-label randomised controlled trial with examination of mediation and a cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: NHS smoking cessation clinics. PARTICIPANTS: People seeking help to stop smoking. INTERVENTIONS: Nicotine preloading comprised wearing a 21 mg/24 hour nicotine patch for 4 weeks prior to quit date. In addition, minimal behavioural support was provided to explain the intervention rationale and to support adherence. In the comparator group, participants received equivalent behavioural support. Randomisation was stratified by centre and concealed from investigators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 6-month prolonged abstinence assessed using the Russell Standard. The secondary outcomes were 4-week and 12-month abstinence. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed from baseline to 1 week after quit day. In a planned analysis, we adjusted for the use of varenicline (Champix®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA) as post-cessation medication. Cost-effectiveness analysis took a health-service perspective. The within-trial analysis assessed health-service costs during the 13 months of trial enrolment relative to the previous 6 months comparing trial arms. The base case was based on multiple imputation for missing cost data. We modelled long-term health outcomes of smoking-related diseases using the European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco (EQUIPT) model. RESULTS: In total, 1792 people were eligible and were enrolled in the study, with 893 randomised to the control group and 899 randomised to the intervention group. In the intervention group, 49 (5.5%) people discontinued preloading prematurely and most others used it daily. The primary outcome, biochemically validated 6-month abstinence, was achieved by 157 (17.5%) people in the intervention group and 129 (14.4%) people in the control group, a difference of 3.02 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 6.41 percentage points; odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.62; p = 0.081]. Adjusted for use of post-quit day varenicline, the OR was 1.34 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.73; p = 0.028). Secondary abstinence outcomes were similar. The OR for the occurrence of serious AEs was 1.12 (95% CI 0.42 to 3.03). Moderate-severity nausea occurred in an additional 4% of the preloading group compared with the control group. There was evidence that reduced urges to smoke and reduced smoke inhalation mediated the effect of preloading on abstinence. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at the 6-month follow-up for preloading relative to control was £710 (95% CI -£13,674 to £23,205), but preloading was dominant at 12 months and in the long term, with an 80% probability that it is cost saving. LIMITATIONS: The open-label design could partially account for the mediation results. Outcome assessment could not be blinded but was biochemically verified. CONCLUSIONS: Use of nicotine-patch preloading for 4 weeks prior to attempting to stop smoking can increase the proportion of people who stop successfully, but its benefit is undermined because it reduces the use of varenicline after preloading. If this latter effect could be overcome, then nicotine preloading appears to improve health and reduce health-service costs in the long term. Future work should determine how to ensure that people using nicotine preloading opt to use varenicline as cessation medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33031001. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Gradual Versus Abrupt Smoking Cessation: A Randomized, Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most smoking cessation guidelines advise quitting abruptly. However, many quit attempts involve gradual cessation. If gradual cessation is as successful, smokers can be advised to quit either way. OBJECTIVE: To examine the success of quitting smoking by gradual compared with abrupt quitting. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled noninferiority trial. (International Standardized Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN22526020). SETTING: Primary care clinics in England. PARTICIPANTS: 697 adult smokers with tobacco addiction. INTERVENTION: Participants quit smoking abruptly or reduced smoking gradually by 75% in the 2 weeks before quitting. Both groups received behavioral support from nurses and used nicotine replacement before and after quit day. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was prolonged validated abstinence from smoking 4 weeks after quit day. The secondary outcome was prolonged, validated, 6-month abstinence. RESULTS: At 4 weeks, 39.2% (95% CI, 34.0% to 44.4%) of the participants in the gradual-cessation group were abstinent compared with 49.0% (CI, 43.8% to 54.2%) in the abrupt-cessation group (relative risk, 0.80 [CI, 0.66 to 0.93]). At 6 months, 15.5% (CI, 12.0% to 19.7%) of the participants in the gradual-cessation group were abstinent compared with 22.0% (CI, 18.0% to 26.6%) in the abrupt-cessation group (relative risk, 0.71 [CI, 0.46 to 0.91]). Participants who preferred gradual cessation were significantly less likely to be abstinent at 4 weeks than those who preferred abrupt cessation (38.3% vs 52.2%; P = 0.007). LIMITATIONS: Blinding was impossible. Most participants were white. CONCLUSION: Quitting smoking abruptly is more likely to lead to lasting abstinence than cutting down first, even for smokers who initially prefer to quit by gradual reduction. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: British Heart Foundation.

Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Control of blood pressure is a key component of cardiovascular disease prevention, but is difficult to achieve and until recently has been the sole preserve of health professionals. This study assessed whether self-management by people with poorly controlled hypertension resulted in better blood pressure control compared with usual care. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 24 general practices in the UK. Patients aged 35-85 years were eligible for enrolment if they had blood pressure more than 140/90 mm Hg despite antihypertensive treatment and were willing to self-manage their hypertension. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to self-management, consisting of self-monitoring of blood pressure and self-titration of antihypertensive drugs, combined with telemonitoring of home blood pressure measurements or to usual care. Randomisation was done by use of a central web-based system and was stratified by general practice with minimisation for sex, baseline systolic blood pressure, and presence or absence of diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was change in mean systolic blood pressure between baseline and each follow-up point (6 months and 12 months). All randomised patients who attended follow-up visits at 6 months and 12 months and had complete data for the primary outcome were included in the analysis, without imputation for missing data. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN17585681. FINDINGS: 527 participants were randomly assigned to self-management (n=263) or control (n=264), of whom 480 (91%; self-management, n=234; control, n=246) were included in the primary analysis. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased by 12.9 mm Hg (95% CI 10.4-15.5) from baseline to 6 months in the self-management group and by 9.2 mm Hg (6.7-11.8) in the control group (difference between groups 3.7 mm Hg, 0.8-6.6; p=0.013). From baseline to 12 months, systolic blood pressure decreased by 17.6 mm Hg (14.9-20.3) in the self-management group and by 12.2 mm Hg (9.5-14.9) in the control group (difference between groups 5.4 mm Hg, 2.4-8.5; p=0.0004). Frequency of most side-effects did not differ between groups, apart from leg swelling (self-management, 74 patients [32%]; control, 55 patients [22%]; p=0.022). INTERPRETATION: Self-management of hypertension in combination with telemonitoring of blood pressure measurements represents an important new addition to control of hypertension in primary care. FUNDING: Department of Health Policy Research Programme, National Coordinating Centre for Research Capacity Development, and Midlands Research Practices Consortium.

Sudden death in patients receiving drugs tending to prolong the QT interval.

AIMS: To examine risks of sudden death in the community associated with drugs grouped by their risk of causing torsades de pointes (TdP) and to explore the risks for individual drugs. METHODS: Case-control study comparing prior drug intakes and morbidities, using the Arizona classification of drugs causing TdP. Participants included 1010 patients dying suddenly where post-mortem examination did not identify a clear cause of death, and 3030 matched living controls from primary care. RESULTS: Noncardiac drug risk was posed by antipsychotics and antidepressants. Significantly raised odds ratios (ORs) were found for takers of typical and atypical antipsychotics, ORs [95% confidence interval] 3.94 (2.05, 7.55) and 4.36 (2.54, 7.51), and of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] rather than tricyclic antidepressants, ORs 2.21 (1.61, 3.05) and 1.44 (0.96, 2.13). No significant risk was associated with other, noncardiac or psychiatric drugs, OR 1.09 (0.85, 1.41). Arizona classified drugs considered to raise risk of TdP were associated with raised risk of sudden death, as were those only weakly associated with TdP and not considered to pose a risk in normal use, ORs 2.08 (1.45, 3.00) and 1.74 (1.33, 2.28), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Atypical and typical antipsychotic drug use were both strongly associated with raised risks, as were SSRIs. Tricyclic antidepressants were not associated with raised risks. The Arizona classification of risk of TdP was a poor predictor of likelihood of noncardiac drug-associated sudden death.

Protocol for Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged study (BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial of warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in the management of atrial fibrillation in an elderly primary care population [ISRCTN89345269].

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important independent risk factor for stroke. Randomised controlled trials have shown that this risk can be reduced substantially by treatment with warfarin or more modestly by treatment with aspirin. Existing trial data for the effectiveness of warfarin are drawn largely from studies in selected secondary care populations that under-represent the elderly. The Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged (BAFTA) study will provide evidence of the risks and benefits of warfarin versus aspirin for the prevention of stroke for older people with AF in a primary care setting. STUDY DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial where older patients with AF are randomised to receive adjusted dose warfarin or aspirin. Patients will be followed up at three months post-randomisation, then at six monthly intervals there after for an average of three years by their general practitioner. Patients will also receive an annual health questionnaire.1240 patients will be recruited from over 200 practices in England. Patients must be aged 75 years or over and have AF. Patients will be excluded if they have a history of any of the following conditions: rheumatic heart disease; major non-traumatic haemorrhage; intra-cranial haemorrhage; oesophageal varices; active endoscopically proven peptic ulcer disease; allergic hypersensitivity to warfarin or aspirin; or terminal illness. Patients will also be excluded if the GP considers that there are clinical reasons to treat a patient with warfarin in preference to aspirin (or vice versa). The primary end-point is fatal or non-fatal disabling stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) or significant arterial embolism. Secondary outcomes include major extra-cranial haemorrhage, death (all cause, vascular), hospital admissions (all cause, vascular), cognition, quality of life, disability and compliance with study medication.