Abstract
Background: There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for long-term smoking cessation in primary care, or whether the treatment effectiveness differs by socioeconomic position (SEP). Therefore, we estimated the long-term effectiveness of varenicline versus NRT ( > 2 years) on smoking cessation, and investigated whether effectiveness differs by SEP. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of electronic medical records from 654 general practices in England, within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, using three different analytical methods: multivariable logistic regression, propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses. Exposure was prescription of varenicline versus NRT, and the primary outcome was smoking cessation at 2 years' follow-up; outcome was also assessed at 3, 6, and 9 months, and at 1 and 4 years after exposure. SEP was defined using the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Results: At 2 years, 28.8% (N=20 362/70 610) of participants prescribed varenicline and 24.3% (N=36 268/149 526) of those prescribed NRT quit; adjusted odds ratio was 1.26 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23 to 1.29], P < 0.0001. The association persisted for up to 4 years and was consistent across all analyses. We found little evidence that the effectiveness of varenicline differed greatly by SEP. However, patients from areas of higher deprivation were less likely to be prescribed varenicline; adjusted odds ratio was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.92), P < 0.0001. Conclusions: Patients prescribed varenicline were more likely to be abstinent up to 4 years after first prescription than those prescribed NRT. In combination with other evidence, the results from this study may be used to update clinical guidelines on the use of varenicline for smoking cessation.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1948-1957 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | International Journal of Epidemiology |
Volume | 46 |
Issue number | 6 |
Early online date | 26 Jun 2017 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 31 Dec 2017 |
Funding
1Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, 2School of Social and Community Medicine, Barley House, 3UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, 4School of Social and Community Medicine, Canynge Hall, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, 5National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK and 6Department of Economics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK *Corresponding author. Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK. E mail: [email protected] The MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol is supported by the Medical Research Council and the University of Bristol [MC_UU_12013/6, MC_UU_12013/9]. The research described in this paper was funded by the Medical Research Council [MR/N01006X/1] and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme [project number 14/49/94]. A.E.T., M.R.M. and G.T. are members of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, a UKCRC Public Health Research: Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. K.H.T. was funded by a Clinical Lectureship award from the National Institute for Health Research from March 2014 to October 2016. R.M.M. is supported by a Cancer Research UK programme grant [C18281/ A19169] (the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme). T.J. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. The funders of this research had no role in the study’s design, conduct or reporting. Conflict of interest: M.R.M. reports grants from Pfizer, grants from Rusan, and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work; A.E.T. reports a grant from the Global Research Awards for Nicotine Dependence which is an Independent Competitive Grants Program supported by Pfizer. R.M.M. was a member of the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency which approves applications for CPRD studies. All other authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Keywords
- Causal
- Cohort
- Effectiveness
- Electronic medical records
- Instrumental variable
- Nicotine replacement therapy
- Primary care
- Smoking cessation
- Tobacco
- Varenicline
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Epidemiology
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The effectiveness of varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy on long-term smoking cessation in primary care: A prospective cohort study of electronic medical records'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Gemma Taylor
- Department of Psychology - Reader
- Addiction and Mental Health Group (AIM)
- Centre for 21st Century Public Health
Person: Research & Teaching, Core staff