Effects of Varenicline, Bupropion, Nicotine Patch, and Placebo on Treating Smoking Among Persons With Current or Past Major Depressive Disorder: Secondary Analysis of a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the leading smoking cessation medications among individuals with current versus past major depressive disorder (MDD).
METHODS
This was a secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind trial over 12 weeks with varenicline or bupropion, followed by a 12-week assessment, in participants ages 18-75 with past (N=2,174) or current (N=451) MDD or without psychiatric disorders (N=4,028). Interventions included 12 weeks of pharmacotherapy with placebo, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; nicotine patch), bupropion, or varenicline, and brief counseling. The primary safety outcome was occurrence of one or more moderate to severe neuropsychiatric adverse events. Efficacy was assessed as biochemically verified continuous abstinence during weeks 9-12.
RESULTS
Among all 6,653 participants, the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events did not differ by medication within the past-MDD, current-MDD, or nonpsychiatric cohorts. The MDD cohorts had higher risk difference (p<0.001) for neuropsychiatric adverse events compared with the nonpsychiatric cohort (past-MDD cohort, risk difference=-0.03, 95% CI=-0.05, -0.02; current-MDD cohort, risk difference=-0.02, 95% CI=-0.05, 0.00). Within the past-MDD cohort, the odds ratios compared with placebo were 3.0 (95% CI=2.0, 4.5) for varenicline, 2.1 (95% CI=1.6, 2.7) for bupropion, and 2.1 (95% CI=1.4, 3.2) for NRT. Within the current-MDD cohort, varenicline differed from placebo…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 6,653 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.