Skip to main content
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Feb;24(9):1–46. doi: 10.3310/hta24090

Varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: an observational study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Neil M Davies, Amy E Taylor, Gemma Mj Taylor, Taha Itani, Tim Jones, Richard M Martin, Marcus R Munafò, Frank Windmeijer, Kyla H Thomas
PMCID: PMC7061271  PMID: 32079557

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Smoking is the leading avoidable cause of illness and premature mortality. The first-line treatments for smoking cessation are nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline. Meta-analyses of experimental studies have shown that participants allocated to the varenicline group were 1.57 times (95% confidence interval 1.29 to 1.91 times) as likely to be abstinent 6 months after treatment as those allocated to the nicotine replacement therapy group. However, there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of varenicline when prescribed in primary care. We investigated the effectiveness and rate of adverse events of these medicines in the general population.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of prescribing varenicline on smoking cessation rates and health outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

METHODS

We conducted an observational cohort study using electronic medical records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We extracted data on all patients who were prescribed varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy after 1 September 2006 who were aged ≥ 18 years. We investigated the effects of varenicline on smoking cessation, all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality and hospitalisation for: (1) chronic lung disease, (2) lung cancer, (3) coronary heart disease, (4) pneumonia, (5) cerebrovascular disease, (6) diabetes, and (7) external causes; primary care diagnosis of myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or prescription for anxiety; weight in kg; general practitioner and hospital attendance. Our primary outcome was smoking cessation 2 years after the first prescription. We investigated the baseline differences between patients prescribed varenicline and patients prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. We report results using multivariable-adjusted, propensity score and instrumental variable regression. Finally, we developed methods to assess the relative bias of the different statistical methods we used.

RESULTS

People prescribed varenicline were healthier at baseline than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy in almost all characteristics, which highlighted the potential for residual confounding. Our instrumental variable analysis results found little evidence that patients prescribed varenicline had lower mortality 2 years after their first prescription (risk difference 0.67, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to 1.46) than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. They had similar rates of all-cause hospitalisation, incident primary care diagnoses of myocardial infarction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. People prescribed varenicline subsequently attended primary care less frequently. Patients prescribed varenicline were more likely (odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.42 to 1.50) to be abstinent 6 months after treatment than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy when estimated using multivariable-adjusted for baseline covariates. Patients from more deprived areas were less likely to be prescribed varenicline. However, varenicline had similar effectiveness for these groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients prescribed varenicline in primary care were more likely to quit smoking than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy, but there was little evidence that they had lower rates of mortality or morbidity in the 4 years following the first prescription. There was little evidence of heterogeneity in effectiveness across the population.

FUTURE WORK

Future research should investigate the decline in prescribing of smoking cessation products; develop an optimal treatment algorithm for smoking cessation; use methods for using instruments with survival outcomes; and develop methods for comparing multivariable-adjusted and instrumental variable estimates.

LIMITATIONS

Not all of our code lists were validated, body mass index and Index of Multiple Deprivation had missing values, our results may suffer from residual confounding, and we had no information on treatment adherence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as NCT02681848.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Smoking is the number one avoidable cause of ill health and death. Experiments suggest that more smokers will quit after being given the drug varenicline than with any other smoking cessation treatment. However, most of the experiments used to license varenicline had a relatively short follow-up (< 1 year) and did not necessarily recruit participants who were representative of smokers seen in a general practice in the UK, who tend to be older, are sicker and more likely to have neuropsychiatric illnesses. In this study, we investigated the outcomes of 287,079 patients prescribed varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. nicotine patches and gum). We followed each patient for up to 4 years after they received their prescriptions and matched their data to information on deaths from the Office for National Statistics and hospital admissions. We investigated how often these patients subsequently attended their general practitioner, and how often they received a diagnosis of myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression or anxiety in primary care. We found that patients who were prescribed varenicline were much more likely to quit smoking up to 4 years after they received treatment and subsequently attended their general practitioner less frequently. These findings were robust across the three different analysis methods we used. We also found that patients prescribed varenicline were much less likely to be ill or to die than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. However, these results may be because the patients who were prescribed varenicline were much healthier before they received the prescription. Therefore, these differences in health are unlikely to be caused by taking varenicline or quitting smoking. In conclusion, varenicline helped patients quit smoking, but there was little causal evidence that prescribing patients varenicline causally reduced rates of mortality or morbidity compared with prescribing nicotine replacement therapy.


Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Peto R, Darby S, Deo H, Silcocks P, Whitley E, Doll R. Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies. BMJ 2000;321:323–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7257.323 doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7257.323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Jha P, Peto R. Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. N Engl J Med 2014;370:60–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1308383 doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1308383. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Department of Health and Social Care. Smoking Kills: A White Paper on Tobacco. 1998. URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4006684 (accessed 20 June 2014).
  4. Ratschen E, Britton J, McNeill A. The smoking culture in psychiatry: time for change. Br J Psychiatry 2011;198:6–7. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.081372 doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.081372. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Allender S, Balakrishnan R, Scarborough P, Webster P, Rayner M. The burden of smoking-related ill health in the UK. Tob Control 2009;18:262–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2008.026294 doi: 10.1136/tc.2008.026294. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Office for National Statistics. Adult Smoking Habits in the UK. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/adultsmokinghabitsingreatbritain/2016 (accessed 19 July 2017).
  7. Cahill K, Stevens S, Perera R, Lancaster T. Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;5:CD009329. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009329.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009329.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. Thomas KH, Martin RM, Davies NM, Metcalfe C, Windmeijer F, Gunnell D. Smoking cessation treatment and risk of depression, suicide, and self harm in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2013;347:f5704. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. US FDA. Press Announcements, FDA: Boxed Warning on Serious Mental Health Events to be Required for Chantix and Zyban. URL: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm170100.htm (accessed 23 September 2014).
  10. Anthenelli RM, Benowitz NL, West R, St Aubin L, McRae T, Lawrence D, et al. Neuropsychiatric safety and efficacy of varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine patch in smokers with and without psychiatric disorders (EAGLES): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Lancet 2016;387:2507–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30272-0 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30272-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses – United States, 2000–2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:1226. [PubMed]
  12. Brown T, Platt S, Amos A. Equity impact of population-level interventions and policies to reduce smoking in adults: a systematic review. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014;138:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.03.001 doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Davies NM, Taylor G, Taylor AE, Thomas KH, Windmeijer F, Martin RM, Munafò MR. What are the effects of varenicline compared with nicotine replacement therapy on long-term smoking cessation and clinically important outcomes? Protocol for a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2015;5:e009665. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009665 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (online). London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed January 2020).
  15. Herrett E, Gallagher AM, Bhaskaran K, Forbes H, Mathur R, van Staa T, Smeeth L. Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:827–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv098 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Davies NM, Taylor GMJ, Taylor AE, Jones T, Martin RM, Munafò MR, et al. The effects of prescribing varenicline on two-year health outcomes: an observational cohort study using electronic medical records: varenicline and 2-year health outcomes. Addiction 2018;113:1105–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14146 doi: 10.1111/add.14146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. Taylor GMJ, Taylor AE, Thomas KH, Jones T, Martin RM, Munafò MR, et al. The effectiveness of varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy on long-term smoking cessation in primary care: a prospective cohort study of electronic medical records. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:1948–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx109 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. NICE. Quality and Outcomes Framework Indicators. Standards & Indicators. URL: www.nice.org.uk/standards-and-indicators/qofindicators?categories=3910&page=1 (accessed 26 April 2018).
  19. World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Tenth Revision. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. [PubMed]
  20. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist’s dream? Epidemiology 2006;17:360–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000222409.00878.37 doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000222409.00878.37. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Brookhart MA, Wang PS, Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S. Evaluating short-term drug effects using a physician-specific prescribing preference as an instrumental variable. Epidemiology 2006;17:268–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000193606.58671.c5 doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000193606.58671.c5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Davies NM. Varenicline Safety. 2016. URL: https://github.com/nmdavies/varenicline-safety (accessed January 2020).
  23. Davies NM. Varenicline Effectiveness. 2016. URL: https://github.com/nmdavies/varenicline-effectiveness (accessed January 2020).
  24. Dregan A, Moller H, Murray-Thomas T, Gulliford MC. Validity of cancer diagnosis in a primary care database compared with linked cancer registrations in England. Population-based cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol 2012;36:425–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2012.05.013 doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2012.05.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. OpenPrescribing. URL: https://openprescribing.net/ (accessed 28 March 2018).
  26. Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009;338:b2393. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2393 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. Martinussen T, Vansteelandt S, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Zucker DM. Instrumental variables estimation of exposure effects on a time-to-event endpoint using structural cumulative survival models. Biometrics 2017;73:1140–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12699 doi: 10.1111/biom.12699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. West R, Hajek P, Stead L, Stapleton J. Outcome criteria in smoking cessation trials: proposal for a common standard. Addiction 2005;100:299–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00995.x doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00995.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Baker TB, Piper ME, Stein JH, Smith SS, Bolt DM, Fraser DL, Flore MC. Effects of nicotine patch vs. varenicline vs. combination nicotine replacement therapy on smoking cessation at 26 weeks: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;315:371–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.19284 doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.19284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Aubin H-J, Bobak A, Britton JR, Oncken C, Billing CB Jr, Gong J, Williams KE, Reeves KR. Varenicline versus transdermal nicotine patch for smoking cessation: results from a randomised open label trial. Thorax 2008;63:717–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2007.090647 doi: 10.1136/thx.2007.090647. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Davies NM, Smith GD, Windmeijer F, Martin RM. Issues in the reporting and conduct of instrumental variable studies: a systematic review. Epidemiology 2013;24:363–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e31828abafb doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31828abafb. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Staiger D, Stock J. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997;65:557–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171753 doi: 10.2307/2171753. [DOI]
  33. ClinicalTrials.gov. Study To Evaluate Cardiac Assessments Following Different Treatments Of Smoking Cessation Medications In Subjects With And Without Psychiatric Disorders. Study Results–ClinicalTrials.gov. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT01574703 (accessed 12 August 2017).
  34. Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Eapen S, Wu P, Prochaska JJ. Cardiovascular events associated with smoking cessation pharmacotherapies clinical perspective: a network meta-analysis. Circulation 2014;129:28–41. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.003961 doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.003961. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. Swanson SA, Robins JM, Miller M, Hernán MA. Selecting on treatment: a pervasive form of bias in instrumental variable analyses. Am J Epidemiol 2015;181:191–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu284 doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  36. Lawlor DA, Tilling K, Davey Smith G. Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:1866–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw314 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Davies NM, Thomas KH, Taylor AE, Taylor GMJ, Martin RM, Munafò MR, Windmeijer F. How to compare instrumental variable and conventional regression analyses using negative controls and bias plots. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:2067–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx014 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

RESOURCES