{"title":"胞二磷胆碱与去甲替林的戒烟疗效和安全性对比:一项多中心、随机、双盲和安慰剂对照试验。","authors":"Suthat Rungruanghiranya, Sirapat Tulatamakit, Kaweesak Chittawatanarat, Kanokwan Preedapornpakorn, Thanawat Wongphan, Narueporn Sutanthavibul, Sunida Preechawong, Pichaya Petborom","doi":"10.1111/resp.14787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Cytisine serves as an affordable smoking cessation aid with acceptable safety profile. However, data comparing its efficacy and safety to standard therapies are limited. We aimed to examine efficacy and safety of cytisine compared to nortriptyline, which is the only approved smoking-cessation medication in Thailand.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 12-month, multicentre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Participants aged ≥20 years who smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day were randomly assigned to receive a 25-day cytisine or a 12-week nortriptyline treatment course. Brief interventions (BI) for smoking cessation were provided to all participants. The primary outcome was biochemically verified continuous abstinence rate (CAR) at 12 months. Additionally, self-reported abstinence, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) ≤ 10 ppm, was collected at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months to assess both CAR and 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate (PAR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1086 participants were recruited and randomized into cytisine (n = 540) and nortriptyline (n = 546) groups. The 12-month CAR was 12.22% for cytisine and 9.52% for nortriptyline. The relative difference was 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]; -0.01 to 0.06) and the relative risk was 1.28 (95% CI; 0.91-1.81). No differences were observed in secondary outcomes between both groups. The incidence of adverse effects from cytisine appeared to be lower than that of nortriptyline.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At 12 months, cytisine plus BI was as effective as nortriptyline plus BI for smoking cessation. The adverse events for both cytisine and nortriptyline were minimal and well-tolerated.</p>","PeriodicalId":21129,"journal":{"name":"Respirology","volume":" ","pages":"880-887"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of cytisine versus nortriptyline for smoking cessation: A multicentre, randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Suthat Rungruanghiranya, Sirapat Tulatamakit, Kaweesak Chittawatanarat, Kanokwan Preedapornpakorn, Thanawat Wongphan, Narueporn Sutanthavibul, Sunida Preechawong, Pichaya Petborom\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/resp.14787\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Cytisine serves as an affordable smoking cessation aid with acceptable safety profile. However, data comparing its efficacy and safety to standard therapies are limited. We aimed to examine efficacy and safety of cytisine compared to nortriptyline, which is the only approved smoking-cessation medication in Thailand.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 12-month, multicentre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Participants aged ≥20 years who smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day were randomly assigned to receive a 25-day cytisine or a 12-week nortriptyline treatment course. Brief interventions (BI) for smoking cessation were provided to all participants. The primary outcome was biochemically verified continuous abstinence rate (CAR) at 12 months. Additionally, self-reported abstinence, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) ≤ 10 ppm, was collected at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months to assess both CAR and 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate (PAR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1086 participants were recruited and randomized into cytisine (n = 540) and nortriptyline (n = 546) groups. The 12-month CAR was 12.22% for cytisine and 9.52% for nortriptyline. The relative difference was 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]; -0.01 to 0.06) and the relative risk was 1.28 (95% CI; 0.91-1.81). No differences were observed in secondary outcomes between both groups. The incidence of adverse effects from cytisine appeared to be lower than that of nortriptyline.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At 12 months, cytisine plus BI was as effective as nortriptyline plus BI for smoking cessation. The adverse events for both cytisine and nortriptyline were minimal and well-tolerated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respirology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"880-887\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respirology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.14787\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respirology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.14787","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy and safety of cytisine versus nortriptyline for smoking cessation: A multicentre, randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled trial.
Background and objective: Cytisine serves as an affordable smoking cessation aid with acceptable safety profile. However, data comparing its efficacy and safety to standard therapies are limited. We aimed to examine efficacy and safety of cytisine compared to nortriptyline, which is the only approved smoking-cessation medication in Thailand.
Methods: A 12-month, multicentre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Participants aged ≥20 years who smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day were randomly assigned to receive a 25-day cytisine or a 12-week nortriptyline treatment course. Brief interventions (BI) for smoking cessation were provided to all participants. The primary outcome was biochemically verified continuous abstinence rate (CAR) at 12 months. Additionally, self-reported abstinence, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) ≤ 10 ppm, was collected at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months to assess both CAR and 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate (PAR).
Results: A total of 1086 participants were recruited and randomized into cytisine (n = 540) and nortriptyline (n = 546) groups. The 12-month CAR was 12.22% for cytisine and 9.52% for nortriptyline. The relative difference was 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]; -0.01 to 0.06) and the relative risk was 1.28 (95% CI; 0.91-1.81). No differences were observed in secondary outcomes between both groups. The incidence of adverse effects from cytisine appeared to be lower than that of nortriptyline.
Conclusion: At 12 months, cytisine plus BI was as effective as nortriptyline plus BI for smoking cessation. The adverse events for both cytisine and nortriptyline were minimal and well-tolerated.
期刊介绍:
Respirology is a journal of international standing, publishing peer-reviewed articles of scientific excellence in clinical and clinically-relevant experimental respiratory biology and disease. Fields of research include immunology, intensive and critical care, epidemiology, cell and molecular biology, pathology, pharmacology, physiology, paediatric respiratory medicine, clinical trials, interventional pulmonology and thoracic surgery.
The Journal aims to encourage the international exchange of results and publishes papers in the following categories: Original Articles, Editorials, Reviews, and Correspondences.
Respirology is the preferred journal of the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, has been adopted as the preferred English journal of the Japanese Respiratory Society and the Taiwan Society of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and is an official journal of the World Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology.