New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What has been Investigated and What is in the Pipeline?

A wide range of support is available to help smokers to quit and aid attempts at harm reduction, including three first-line smoking cessation medications: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Despite the efficacy of these, there is a continual need to diversify the range of medications so that the needs of tobacco users are met. This paper compares the first-line smoking cessation medications to: 1) two variants of these existing products: new galenic formulations of varenicline and novel nicotine delivery devices; and 2) twenty-four alternative products: cytisine (novel outside of central and eastern Europe), nortriptyline, other tricyclic antidepressants, electronic cigarettes, clonidine (an anxiolytic), other anxiolytics (e.g. buspirone), selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) reuptake inhibitors, supplements (e.g. St John’s wort), silver acetate, nicobrevin, modafinil, venlafaxine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI), opioid antagonist, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) antagonists, glucose tablets, selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists, nicotine vaccines, drugs that affect gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission, drugs that affect N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDA), dopamine agonists (e.g. levodopa), pioglitazone (Actos; OMS405), noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and the weight management drug lorcaserin. Six criteria are used: relative efficacy, relative safety, relative cost, relative use (overall impact of effective medication use), relative scope (ability to serve new groups of patients), and relative ease of use (ESCUSE). Many of these products are in the early stages of clinical trials, however, cytisine looks most promising in having established efficacy and safety and being of low cost. Electronic cigarettes have become very popular, appear to be efficacious and are safer than smoking, but issues of continued dependence and possible harms need to be considered

Effects of Preoperative Aspirin on Cardiocerebral and Renal Complications in Non-Emergent Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Sub-Group and Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Postoperative cardiocerebral and renal complications are a major threat for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This study was aimed to examine the effect of preoperative aspirin use on patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: An observational cohort study was performed on consecutive patients (n = 1879) receiving cardiac surgery at this institution. The patients excluded from the study were those with preoperative anticoagulants, unknown aspirin use, or underwent emergent cardiac surgery. Outcome events included were 30-day mortality, renal failure, readmission and a composite outcome - major adverse cardiocerebral events (MACE) that include permanent or transient stroke, coma, perioperative myocardial infarction (MI), heart block and cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Of all patients, 1145 patients met the inclusion criteria and were divided into two groups: those taking (n = 858) or not taking (n = 287) aspirin within 5 days preceding surgery. Patients with aspirin presented significantly more with history of hypertension, diabetes, peripheral arterial disease, previous MI, angina and older age. With propensity scores adjusted and multivariate logistic regression, however, this study showed that preoperative aspirin therapy (vs. no aspirin) significantly reduced the risk of MACE (8.4% vs. 12.5%, odds ratio [OR] 0.585, 95% CI 0.355-0.964, P = 0.035), postoperative renal failure (2.6% vs. 5.2%, OR 0.438, CI 0.203-0.945, P = 0.035) and dialysis required (0.8% vs. 3.1%, OR 0.230, CI 0.071-0.742, P = 0.014), but did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality (4.1% vs. 5.8%, OR 0.744, CI 0.376-1.472, P = 0.396) nor it increased readmissions in the patients undergoing cardiac surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative aspirin therapy is associated with a significant decrease in the risk of MACE and renal failure and did not increase readmissions in patients undergoing non-emergent cardiac surgery

Triple antiplatelet therapy for preventing vascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Dual antiplatelet therapy is usually superior to mono therapy in preventing recurrent vascular events (VEs). This systematic review assesses the safety and efficacy of triple antiplatelet therapy in comparison with dual therapy in reducing recurrent vascular events.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Completed randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of triple versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD), cerebrovascular disease or peripheral vascular disease were identified using electronic bibliographic searches. Data were extracted on composite VEs, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, death and bleeding and analysed with Cochrane Review Manager software. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random effects models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-five completed randomized trials (17,383 patients with IHD) were included which involving the use of intravenous (iv) GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (abciximab, eptifibatide, tirofiban), aspirin, clopidogrel and/or cilostazol. In comparison with aspirin-based therapy, triple therapy using an intravenous GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor significantly reduced composite VEs and MI in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) (VE: OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.86; MI: OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.88) and ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (VE: OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30-0.51; MI: OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17-0.38). A significant reduction in death was also noted in STEMI patients treated with GP IIb/IIIa based triple therapy (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.99). Increased minor bleeding was noted in STEMI and elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients treated with GP IIb/IIIa based triple therapy. Stroke events were too infrequent for us to be able to identify meaningful trends and no data were available for patients recruited into trials on the basis of stroke or peripheral vascular disease.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Triple antiplatelet therapy based on iv GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors was more effective than aspirin-based dual therapy in reducing VEs in patients with acute coronary syndromes (STEMI and NSTEMI). Minor bleeding was increased among STEMI and elective PCI patients treated with a GP IIb/IIIa based triple therapy. In patients undergoing elective PCI, triple therapy had no beneficial effect and was associated with an 80% increase in transfusions and an eightfold increase in thrombocytopenia. Insufficient data exist for patients with prior ischaemic stroke and peripheral vascular disease and further research is needed in these groups of patients.</p