31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Looking Back and Going Forward: Roles of Varenicline and Electronic Cigarettes in Smoking Cessation

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Tobacco use is the single largest preventable cause of death in the United States (US). The national goal of reducing the prevalence of adult cigarette smoking to 12% was retained for 20 years due to non-attainment. Meanwhile, varenicline and electronic cigarettes (ECs) became available in the US in 2006 and 2007, respectively, and have been used by many smokers wanting to quit. The purpose of this review is to compare varenicline and ECs in terms of efficacy for smoking cessation after over a decade of widespread use in the US.

          Data collection for systematic review and qualitative synthesis by a PubMed search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelinesand the Oxford Quality Scale, respectively, was performed in June 2018 and updated in June 2020. Articles were eligible if published in English as original research in the form of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), a systematic review and meta-analysis, a systematic review, or a cross-sectional study.

          Eighteen studies were included: nine RCTs, four cross-sectional studies, two meta-analyses, one systematic review, one systematic review and meta-analysis, and one cohort study. No head-to-head RCT compared varenicline to ECs. In four RCTs, varenicline was more effective than placebo for smoking cessation. In two RCTs, ECs were more effective than placebo but a meta-analysis of 20 studies reported a statistically significant decrease in the odds of quitting smoking using ECs as compared to placebo.

          To conclude, varenicline and ECs have data suggesting efficacy for smoking cessation; however, unlike varenicline, ECs were not effective in all studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

            It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy

              E-cigarettes are commonly used in attempts to stop smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their effectiveness as compared with that of nicotine products approved as smoking-cessation treatments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cureus
                Cureus
                2168-8184
                Cureus
                Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )
                2168-8184
                2 August 2021
                August 2021
                : 13
                : 8
                : e16824
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Internal Medicine, Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, USA
                [2 ] Hospital Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, USA
                [3 ] Center for Clinical and Translational Science, Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Rochester, USA
                [4 ] Medicine, Guthrie Clinic/Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, USA
                [5 ] Health Economics, Missouri Department of Mental Health, Jefferson City, USA
                Author notes
                Article
                10.7759/cureus.16824
                8425133
                f4fe4648-4c65-4c34-92df-db9af51b2238
                Copyright © 2021, Oloyede et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 2 August 2021
                Categories
                Cardiology
                Internal Medicine
                Public Health

                smoking cessation,e-cigarette,varenicline,public health,cardiovascular disease,nicotine addiction,electronic nicotine delivery systems (ends),e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury (evali),health policy,pulmonary disease

                Comments

                Comment on this article