Evaluation of the effectiveness of cytisine for the treatment of smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Review information

Authors

Omar De Santi1, Vanina Greco2, Marcelo Orellana1, Cecilia Andrea Di Niro3

1Toxicology, Hospital Nacional Prof. Alejandro Posadas. Centro Nacional de Intoxicaciones (CNI), Buenos Aires, Argentina
2Toxicology, Hospital Nacional Prof. Alejandro Posadas.Centro Nacional de Intoxicaciones (CNI), Buenos Aires, Argentina
3Cardiology, Sanatorio Anchorena San Martin, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Citation example: De Santi O, Greco V, Orellana M, Di Niro CA. Evaluation of the effectiveness of cytisine for the treatment of smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Year], Issue [Issue].

Contact person

Omar De Santi

Toxicologist
Hospital Nacional Prof. Alejandro Posadas. Centro Nacional de Intoxicaciones (CNI)
Av. Marconi y Pte. Illia, El Palomar
El Palomar (CP 1684) Buenos Aires
Argentina

E-mail: omardsanti@gmail.com

Dates

Date of Search:22 January 2022
Protocol First Published:Not specified
Review First Published:Not specified
Last Citation Issue:Not specified

What's new

Date / EventDescription
29 January 2022
Updated

PROSPERO ID: CRD42022296780

History

Date / EventDescription

Abstract

Background

Smoking is a chronic disease that generates 8 million premature deaths annually globally. It is one of the main causes of years of life lost or years lived with disability and is considered worldwide the main cause of preventable death.

Objectives

The purpose of this review was evaluated the existing evidence on the effectiveness and safety of Cytisine for smoking cessation compared to others therapeutics strategies. Primary outcome: smoking cessation rate, at longest follow-up and at least 6 months verified biochemically; Secondary outcome: a) Smoking cessation according to self-report at 6 and 12 months; b) Incidence of adverse events (AEs)

Search methods

An exhaustive search of the scientific literature was carried out in each of the following databases from the beginning of the report until October 2022, identifying randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of cytisine for smoking cessation, regardless of its publication status: PubMed (https://PubMed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Cochrane Library (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/), SciELO (https://SciELO.org/es/), Science Direct (https://www.ScienceDirect.com/), Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) Europe PMC (https://europepmc.org/), Trip Database (https://www.tripdatabase.com/), Clinical Trials (https://ClinicalTrials.gov/), LILACS (https://LILACS.bvsalud.org/es/), and the Russian electronic library database (www.elibrary.ru). Also we manually retrieve articles considered relevant in non-indexed literature in the cited databases, using the Gray Matters-CADTH gray literature registry (https://www.cadth.ca).

Selection criteria

The selection and extraction of data was carried out using the Covidence tool (https://www.covidence.org) Data extraction was done using a predefined form including study characteristics, details of participants, interventions, comparators and outcomes

Data collection and analysis

The methods was established prior to their implementation and their registration was made prior to the start of data extraction in PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). PROSPERO ID: CRD42022296780.Two authors (ODS, CDN) extracted the data independently. Any disagreement was resolved by consensus or discussion with another author (MJO).The risk of bias of the RCTs was assessed by the tool described in the Cochrane Handbook (Cochrane Handbook 2022).

Main results

We identified 12 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We pooled the findings of five RCT which contributed to the primary analysis (cytisine versus placebo) covering 2134 patients, 1099 of whom took cytisine, and indicates that cytisine administered at the standard dosage, is an effective smoking cessation treatment increasing the chances of quitting compared to placebo (smoking cessation rate at longest follow-up: RR= 3.75, 95% CI 2.83 to 4.97; participants = 2134; I²= 18%; smoking cessation rate at least six months: RR= 3.80, 95% CI 2.82 to 5.11; participants = 1938; I²= 35%; low-quality evidence).We estimates an NNT of 6. In the subgroup analysis, those trials with a higher intensity of behavioral therapy presented a stable estimate (RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.81 to 5.17; participants = 1394; studies = 4; I²= 38%; low-quality evidence) , compared to those trials in which therapy was kept to a minimum. Only two clinical trials enrolled participants who smoked less than 10 cigarettes/day and considering the risk of bias and the level of heterogeneity in these trials, we decided not to pooled the findings. Three smoking cessation trials with cytisine were done in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Treating the trials as a subgroup of the main analysis the pooled analysis at longest follow-up deliver a RR of 1.13 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.27; participants = 2801; very low-quality evidence) with a high level of heterogeneity (I²= 67%). The remaining trials in upper/middle-high income countries (MHICs) deliver a RR of 3.76 (95% CI 2.80 to 5.05; participants = 1805; studies = 3; I²= 45%; low-quality evidence)

Two trials compared the efficacy of cytisine versus NRT with dissimilar results.The combination of both studies yields modest results in favour of cytisine (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.73; participants = 1511; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Three recents trials comparing cytisine versus varenicline, and two of these had a non-inferiority design. Pooling these data not demonstrated a clear benefit for cytisine compared with varenicline, with a RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; participants = 2331; studies = 3; I²= 60%; very low-quality evidence)

Meta-analyses of all non-serious AEs in the cytisine group versus placebo groups yielded a RR of 1.24 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.39; participants = 5895; studies = 8; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence). The most frequently reported non-serious AEs across the clinical trials was gastrointestinal symptoms, which occurred with a greater frequency in the cytisine group than in the placebo group.

Two trials included participants with tuberculosis, HIV and alcohol dependence. The included RCT excluded participants with cardiovascular diseases, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or severe forms of major depression and bipolar disorder.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine at standard dosage increased the chances of successful smoking cessation by more than three-fold compared with placebo.Limited evidence suggested that the greater intensity of behavioral therapy was directly associated with the efficacy of cytisine for smoking cessation.The confirmed efficacy of cityisine was not evidenced in trials conducted in LMICs. Cytisine had a benign safety profile, with no evidence of serious safety concerns across clinical trials compared with placebo. The most frequently reported non-serious AEs was gastrointestinal symptoms that were found to be mild and transient. Limited evidence suggested than cytisine is safe in specific populations of smokers, such as people with tuberculosis, HIV or alcohol dependence. However, the confirmed efficacy of cityisine was not evidenced in these populations.Limited evidence suggests that cytisine may be slightly more effective than NRT, with modest cessation rates.Limited evidence suggests that cytisine might have similar efficacy to varenicline.

Further cytisine trials may be useful in specific populations of smokers excluded from the earlier trials. Additional trials of cytisine are needed to explore variations in the drug regimen. More investigations should fully consider assess the cost-effectiveness and economic evaluations of community-based tobacco dependence interventions, considering the cytisine.

Plain language summary

[Evaluation of the effectiveness of cytisine for the treatment of smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

 

[Original language title:Evaluación de la efectividad de la citisina para el tratamiento de deshabituación tabáquica: una revisión sistemática y meta-análisis ]

Background

Description of the condition

Smoking is a chronic disease that generates 8 million premature deaths annually globally (WHO 2019). It is one of the main causes of years of life lost or years lived with disability and is considered worldwide the main cause of preventable death (WHO 2019; Cahill 2016). Its treatment approach includes, among other strategies, increasing the accessibility to drug therapy, which is limited mostly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Description of the intervention

Cytisine is an alkaloid present in plants of the Fabacea family, such as the tree of the genus Laburnum anagyroides (golden rain), with a high affinity and partial agonist action on the nicotinic receptor alpha 4 beta2 (RCP 2018; Gomez-Coronado 2018). Its synthesis as a low-cost drug for smoking cessation began in Bulgaria in 1964 (Tabex®), and later spread to other countries in Eastern Europe and Asia, where it is still marketed (Giulietti 2020; Prochaska 2013).In 2017, its commercialisation began again in Poland by Aflofarm (Dexmoxan ®).

How the intervention might work

Problematic use of psychoactive substances is a complex health condition in which patterns of substance use can interfere with a person's life and cause physical and/or psychological dependence and withdrawal symptoms (Hasin 2013). Cytisine (CAS Nº: 485-35-8) is a partial agonist of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (α4β2* nAChR) whose interaction with the receptor would moderately increase the level of dopamine and turnover at the level of the mesolimbic system and, consequently this would alleviate withdrawal symptoms (Coe 2005).

Why it is important to do this review

According to the results of the latest National Survey of Risk Factors carried out during 2018, the prevalence of smoking in Argentine is 22.2% (95% CI 21.1-23.1) (ENFR 2018). Its prevalence, morbidity and mortality in Argentine continue to be one of the highest in our region and it is even higher in people of lower socioeconomic status (ENFR 2018). These inequalities in health reflect the serious problem of equity in Argentine, constituting a vicious circle between the determinants of health, the determinants of poverty and diseases of our population (Ortun 2007). The results of recently published studies, some in LMICs, that was not included in previous systematic reviews could provide relevant evidence on this intervention, which allows greater certainty for decision-making.

Objectives

The research question is structured according to the PICO criteria:

-Population: Patients of any age, smokers

-Intervention: Cytisine administered as monotherapy orally in any dose schedule

-Comparator: Any pharmacological intervention, placebo or psychological interventions for smoking cessation

-Outcomes:

• Smoking cessation rate, verified by self-report and / or bio chemically at 6 months and 12 months

• Incidence of adverse events (AEs)

The purpose of this review was evaluated the existing evidence on the effectiveness and safety of cytisine for smoking cessation compared to others therapeutics strategies, like Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT), Bupropion or Varenicline.

-Primary outcome: smoking cessation rate, verified bio chemically at 6 and 12 months

-Secondary outcome:

a) Smoking cessation rate according to self-report at 6 and 12 months

b) Incidence of adverse events (AEs)

Smoking cessation rate were calculated based on the numbers of participants randomised to an intervention, excluding any deaths or untraceable moves, in accordance with the Russell Standard criteria (West 2005)

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

This review was prepared following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA). The search strategy was agreed by the authors and replicable, obtaining all relevant studies. The review was done in duplicate to establish the eligibility of the studies.One reviewer was screened the titles and abstracts of publications identified by the search.

-Inclusion criteria: articles with original data from RCT examining the use of cytisine for smoking cessation. The search wasn't restricted by language or status of publication

Exclusion criteria:

a) repetitive data

b) old published data for the same study

c) unavailability of the complete report for reference in case of lack of clarity of information in the abstract

Types of participants

Smokers of any age

Types of interventions

Cytisine is an alkaloid present in plants of the Fabacea family, such as the tree of the genus Laburnum anagyroides (golden rain), with a high affinity and partial agonist action on the nicotinic receptor alpha 4 beta 2 (RCP 2018;Gomez-Coronado 2018)

Inclusion criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the use of oral cytisine for smoking cessation in any dose schedule

Exclusion criteria:

a) smoking cessation is not evaluated

b) smoking cessation is not an outcome

c) outcome measures are not reported in a usable form

d) use of cytisine for conditions other than smoking cessation

Types of outcome measures

The purpose of this review was evaluated the scientific evidence available until October 2022 to summarize the existing evidence on the effectiveness and safety of Cytisine for smoking cessation.

Primary outcomes

The primary outcome was smoking cessation rate, verified bio chemically at 6 and 12 months

Secondary outcomes

The secondary outcomes was:

a) Smoking cessation according to self-report at 6 and 12 months

b) Incidence of adverse events (AEs)

Search methods for identification of studies

An exhaustive search of the scientific literature was carried out in each of the following databases from the beginning of the report until October 2022, identifying RCTs that was evaluated the efficacy of cytisine for smoking cessation, regardless of its publication status: PubMed (https://PubMed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Cochrane Library (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/), SciELO (https://SciELO.org/es/), Science Direct (https://www.ScienceDirect.com/), Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) Europe PMC (https://europepmc.org/), Trip Database (https://www.tripdatabase.com/), Clinical Trials (https://ClinicalTrials.gov/), LILACS (https://LILACS.bvsalud.org/es/), and the Russian electronic library database (www.elibrary.ru).

Electronic searches

PubMed search strategy: ((Cytisine [MeSH] OR Cytisine [tiab] OR cytiton [tiab] OR citizine [tiab] OR cystisin [tiab] OR cytisine hydrochloride [tiab] OR cytisine hydrochloride, hydrate [tiab] OR Tabex [tiab] OR Tsitizin [tiab] OR 3-hydroxy-11-norcytisine [tiab] OR cytisine dihydrochloride, trihydrate [tiab] OR cytisine tetrahydrochloride, trihydrate [tiab]) AND (Smoking cessation [MeSH] OR smoking cessation [tiab] OR Cessation, Smoking [tiab] OR Smoking Cessations [tiab] OR Stopping Smoking [tiab] OR Smoking, Stopping [tiab] OR Giving Up Smoking [tiab] OR Smoking, Giving Up [tiab] OR Smokings, Giving Up [tiab] OR Up Smoking, Giving [tiab] OR Quitting Smoking [tiab] OR Smoking, Quitting [tiab]))

We also included the terms: Laburnum [MeSH] OR laburnum [tiab] OR Laburnums [tiab] OR Golden Chain [tiab] OR Chain, Golden [tiab] OR Chains, Golden [tiab] OR Golden Chains [tiab] OR Laburnum anagyroides [tiab] OR Laburnum anagyroide [ tiab] OR anagyroides, Laburnum [tiab] OR Cytisus laburnum [tiab] OR Cytisus laburnums [tiab] OR laburnums, Cytisus [tiab]

For other databases, the search strategy is explained in Appendices

Searching other resources

Other search sources: It is also planned to manually retrieve articles considered relevant in non-indexed literature in the cited databases, using the Gray Matters-CADTH gray literature registry (https://www.cadth.ca).

Data collection and analysis

The methods was established prior to their implementation and their registration was made prior to the start of data extraction in PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). PROSPERO ID: CRD42022296780

Selection of studies

The selection and extraction of data was carried out using the Covidence tool (https://www.covidence.org). Data extraction was done using a predefined form including study characteristics, details of participants, interventions, comparators and outcomes.The results was filtered by RCT using the following filter provided by the Cochrane manual (Cochrane Handbook 2022): ((randomized controlled trial [pt] OR controlled clinical trial [pt] OR randomized [tiab] OR placebo [tiab] OR clinical trials as topic [mesh: noexp] OR randomly [tiab] OR trial [ti]) NOT (animals [mh] NOT humans [mh]).

Data extraction and management

Two authors (ODS, CDN) extracted the data independently. Any disagreement was resolved by consensus or discussion with another author (MJO). We were data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomisation procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

The risk of bias of the RCTs was assessed by the tool described in the Cochrane Handbook (Cochrane Handbook 2022). The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB1 tool. The following biases were evaluated, detailed below according to RoB1 (and RoB2) terminology:

a) Random sequence generation (selection bias)

b) Allocation concealment (selection bias)

c) Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)

d) Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

e) Selective reporting (reporting bias)

When was necessary, the authors of the evaluated study were contacted for any clarification in this regard. We plan to perform a funnel plot to assess publication bias.The quality of the evidence was evaluated with the GRADE system, through the GRADE pro GDT tool (https://gradepro.org/).

Measures of treatment effect

We were follow the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle, to assess the effect of intervention allocation, and maintains the benefit of the randomisation. We were considered the smoking cessation and adverse events (AEs) as categorical data, and determinate the relative risk (RR) with its respective 95% confidence interval (CI 95%). As an absolute measure, the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) was determined as the inverse the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)

Unit of analysis issues

The level at which randomisation occurred in each of the RCTs was taken into account, so that the number of observations coincided with the number of randomized units. For this, it was differentiated in each case, if it was used in a study with a simple parallel design, a cluster design, crossover design, or with multiple observations for the same result

Dealing with missing data

Important numerical data, such as selected and randomized participants, as well as intention to-treat or per-protocol analysis, was carefully evaluated. In addition, losses to follow up will be assessed and questions related to missing data was critically appraised. Guessing about the results of participants who were lost was avoided. We were contacted the authors of the different clinical trials to try to complete the incomplete information (model of the letter sent to the authors Appendix 8). When missing data was considered to affect the final result, the study was excluded from the meta-analysis

Assessment of heterogeneity

Heterogeneity (or inconsistency) was interpreted graphically (forest plot), through the Q test, Chi² ( χ²), and mainly according to the value of I². The I² statistic was used to measure the magnitude of heterogeneity. It indicates what percentage of the observed variability in the effect estimates is due to heterogeneity, beyond what is expected by chance (by sample size).

The I² is the proportion of the total variability, beyond chance, explainable by heterogeneity and is categorized as follows:

-0-30%: not relevant

-30-60%: moderate heterogeneity

-more than 60%: considerable heterogeneity (high heterogeneity)

Assessment of reporting biases

We have followed standard Cochrane methodology (Cochrane Handbook 2022) to asses the reporting bias, and we plan to perform a funnel plot to assess publication bias.

Data synthesis

If the studies was considered homogeneous, the data was pooled to perform a meta-analysis using the Review Man tool (RevMan 5.4), to assess the degree of statistical heterogeneity, reporting especially the results of the random effects model (RE). Additionally, summary measures was reported using the Fixed Effects (FE) model according to the level of heterogeneity.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

A subgroup analysis was performed when the I² value was greater than 30%. The analysis was performed according:

a) To the income level of the participants / study population: low or lower-middle income country (LMICs) and upper / middle high income. For this purpose, we will use per capita gross national income (GNI) data in US dollars (World Bank Atlas method).

b) Association with cognitive behavioral therapy or other psychological therapy (cytisine with or without psychological therapy for smoking cessation)

c)To the number of cigarettes (<10 or >10 cigarettes / day)

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis was carried out taking into consideration:

a) low risk of bias studies and high risk of bias studies

b) random effects vs fixed effects

c) RR vs Odds Ratio (OR)

Results

Description of studies

Results of the search

A systematic search was carried out in electronic databases (according to the strategy described in Electronic searches). We also retrieve articles considered relevant in non-indexed literature in the cited databases, using the Gray Matters-CADTH gray literature registry (https://www.cadth.ca). The Figure 1 summarizes the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion process (PRISMA flow diagram).

Included studies

Full details of the included studies are given in the Characteristics of included studies tables. In this review, we identified 12 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria:

I.Cytisine vs placebo. Eight trials (Scharfenberg 1971; Vinnikov 2008; Levshin 2009; West 2011; Dogar 2020; Nides 2021; Pastorino 2022; Phusahat 2022) assess the therapeutic efficacy of cytisine versus placebo, covering 5922 participants, 2996 of whom took cytisine. Vinnikov 2008 was conducted at a mining company in Kyrgyzstan while Scharfenberg 1971 was conducted in what was formerly East Germany, at a smoking-cessation clinic. Levshin 2009 was set in the Department of Prevention of the Russian Cancer Research Center N.N. Blokhin (Moscow, Russian Federation), West 2011 in a smoking-cessation clinic of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, in Warsaw (Poland) and Dogar 2020 in 32 health centres, 17 sub district hospitals in Bangladesh and 15 secondary care hospitals in Pakistan. Nides 2021 was a multicenter (8 clinic sites) phase 2B trial, in the United States. Finally, from the most recent clinical trials Pastorino 2022 was set in a single-center at the Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori of Milan Scientific Directorate, in Italy, while Phusahat 2022 was conducted in a pharmacy at the faculty of pharmacy in a university (Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khon Kaen University) in Thailand. In all the clinical trials considered, the participants were adults who were willing to try quit smoking permanently and all smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day (at least 15 cigarettes a day in Vinnikov 2008), with the exception of Dogar 2020, which enrolled participants who smoked fewer than 10 cigarettes per day. Five trials used cytisine 1.5 mg over 20-day (Scharfenberg 1971) or 25-day (Vinnikov 2008; Levshin 2009; West 2011;Dogar 2020; Nides 2021; Phusahat 2022) treatment period. Nides 2021 compare 2 cytisine doses (1.5 mg and 3 mg) versus placebo, and 2 administration schedules [downward titration versus 3 times daily (TID)]. In Pastorino 2022, cytisine was administered with two different dosage schedules lasting 40 days (with a total of 165 tablets of 1.5 mg each) and 84 days (with a reduced dosage after the first 40 days for a cumulative dose of 274 tablets), respectively. In addition, the patients who received the intervention (N=470), were randomized into two arms, where they received only cityisine (N=254) or cityisine plus 100 mg of CardioASA (N=216). Regarding the administration of behavioral therapy for smoking cessation Scharfenberg 1971 did not report the use of behavioral therapy. In West 2011 and Dogar 2020 the behavioural support was minimal. Vinnikov 2008 report that all participants received "behavior counselling" (2 weeks screening and counselling, with no futher details) and Levshin 2009 described as "standard psychological support". All participants in Nides 2021 received approximately 10 minutes of behavioral support sessions at each clinic visit provided by a qualified study site staff member (full detail in protocol ACH-CYT-09 version 3.0). In Pastorino 2022 all participants received counselling and information on the available substances to help quitting, and those randomized to the intervention arm were offered additional behavioral support. The protocol included three counselling calls for both arms: at 7/14/25 days from the start of cytisine therapy or baseline screening examination. While in Phusahat 2022 all participants received smoking cessation counselling by trained pharmacists at a community pharmacy a total of five times (before participation, week 1, week 2, week 4, and week 12). With regard to the follow up, Vinnikov 2008 and Levshin 2009 assed their participants to six months; West 2011, Dogar 2020, Pastorino 2022 and Phusahat 2022 to 12 months, and Scharfenberg 1971 to two years. Nides 2021 followed up for only 8 weeks and although it meets our inclusion criteria for the studies, we have decided to exclude it from the efficacy findings due to its short follow-up for our outcomes (see Analysis 1.1). Finally, with the exception of one clinical trial (Scharfenberg 1971), all other RCT verified claims of abstinence by measure of exhaled CO levels.

II. Cytisine vs NRT. Two trials (Walker 2014; Tindle 2022) compared the efficacy of cytisine versus NRT, involving 1511 participants, 755 of whom took cytisine. Walker 2014 was conducted in New Zealand. Participants assigned to NRT received nicotine patches (in 7mg, 14mg, or 21mg doses), gum (2mg or 4mg), or lozenges (1mg or 2mg), or gum and lozenges. The cytisine arm received a 25-day tablet course following the standard dosing regimen (1.5 to 9 mg per day for 25 days). Low-intensity telephone behavioral support was offered to all participants (an average of three 10- to 15-minute calls over an 8-week period). Continued abstinence at six months without biochemical validation was reported. The recently published Tindle 2022 was a 4-group, randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial, conducted in St Petersburg (Russia) to compare the effects on drinking and smoking of varenicline and cytisine with those of NRT. Included participants were 400 individuals with HIV who engaged in risky drinking (5 prior-month heavy-drinking days [HDDs]) and daily smoking; they were followed up for 12 months after enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 study groups: active varenicline and placebo NRT mouth spray (group 1, N=100), placebo varenicline and active NRT (group 2, N=100), active cytisine and placebo NRT (group 3, N=100), or placebo cytisine and active NRT (group 4, N=100). NRT mouth spray contained 1 mg of nicotine per spray, and participants were instructed to use 8 sprays/d as a minimum for the first 4 weeks and to use the spray as needed during weeks 5 through 8 up to the maximum recommended daily sprays to control cravings.Cytisine dosing followed the traditional 25-day downward titration schedule of 1.5 mg tablets and varenicline for 12 weeks. At baseline, all participants received brief counselling for smoking and drinking alcohol, began study medication, and were advised to quit smoking on the target quit date (TQD) one week late.

III. Cytisine vs Varenicline.Three trials (Courtney 2021; Walker 2021; Tindle 2022) compared the efficacy of cytisine versus varenicline, involving 2331participants, 1162 of whom took cytisine. Two trials were designed as tests of non-inferiority: Courtney 2021 was set in New South Wales and Victoria, states of Australia, while Walker 2021 was conducted in Bay of Plenty, Tokoroa and Lakes District Health Board regions, in New Zeland. Participants in Courtney 2021 received cytisine (n = 725), 1.5 mg capsules over the 25-day course or varenicline (n = 727), 0.5 mg tablets titrated to 1 mg twice daily for 84 days (12 weeks). Also all participants were offered standard quit line support, which consisted of a free telephone-based call-back service for smokers, providing up to 6 behavioral support calls and a kit containing written information about quitting smoking. In Walker 2021 a total of 679 people were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a prescription for a 12-week course of cytisine 1.5 mg (Tabex®) or varenicline (Champix®). Although in the cytisine arm it was administered in the standard 25-day regimen, a maintenance dose was added from day 26 to week 12 (one tablet every 6 hours: two tablets/day) to emulate the duration of treatment with varenicline. All participants were offered low-intensity behavioral support to quit smoking. In both trials, withdrawal was verified using standardized exhaled carbon monoxide (CO, level ≤9 ppm). Finally, the characteristics of Tindle 2022 were previously detailed.

Excluded studies

Eleven trials (Granatowicz 1976; Kempe 1967; Maliszewski 1972; Metelitsa 1987; Monova 2004; Ostrovskaia 1994; Paun 1968; Schmidt 1974; Zatonski 2006; Jeong 2019; Ramotowski 2021) were excluded. The excluded studies are briefly described, with justification for each exclusion, in the Characteristics of excluded studies tables.

Risk of bias in included studies

Full details of risk of bias among the included studies are given in the Characteristics of included studies tables. An overall of bias assessment across domains for each key outcome for each included study are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Allocation (selection bias)

We rated Vinnikov 2008; Levshin 2009; West 2011; Walker 2014; Courtney 2021; Dogar 2020; Walker 2021; Nides 2021, Pastorino 2022, Tindle 2022 and Phusahat 2022 as being at low risk of bias in their randomisation and allocation procedures. Scharfenberg 1971 does not provide details about these procedures, so it was rated as unclear.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)

We rated Walker 2014, Courtney 2021, Walker 2021 and Pastorino 2022 at high risk of bias for a lack of blinding of participants and personnel. Scharfenberg 1971 and Levshin 2009 does not provide details about these procedures, so it was rated as unclear.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Phusahat 2022 was rated as high risk of incomplete outcome data, because the reasons for drop out are not clearly detailed. Even if incomplete outcome data are balanced in numbers across groups (N= 38, 56.72% in cytisine group vs N= 34, 52.31% in placebo group), bias can be introduced if the reasons for missing outcomes differ (Cochrane Handbook 2022). Vinnikov 2008; Levshin 2009; Scharfenberg 1971 were rated as unclear risk. Vinnikov 2008 excluded 26 participants who did not take the medication from the denominator; we have reintegrated them for our meta-analysis, in order to present an intention-to-treat estimate. In Levshin 2009 14 participants were initially randomized but were lost after the first visit.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Levshin 2009 and Scharfenberg 1971 were rated as unclear risk of selective reporting bias. In the first, the authors report measurement of exhaled CO, but it is unclear if it was used after 3 and 6 months of treatment. Again Scharfenberg 1971 does not provide any details about it.

Other potential sources of bias

We don´t finded any other potential sources of bias.

Effects of interventions

The effect of the intervention was analysed for the primary outcome, smoking cessation with biochemical validation by exhaled CO, at 6 and 12 months and also for the secondary outcomes, smoking cessation according to self-report at 6 and 12 months and Incidence of adverse events. Sensitivity analysis was carried out taking into consideration the risk of bias studies, random or fixed-effects models and the summary statistics used to measure treatment effect, odds ratios (OR) or relative risks (RR). Finally, an analysis by subgroups was carried out for the primary outcomes.

1. Cytisine vs placebo

1.1 Outcome: Smoking cessation rate at longest follow up

We pooled the findings of five RCT (Levshin 2009; Vinnikov 2008; West 2011, Pastorino 2022 and Phusahat 2022), covering 2134 patients, 1099 of whom took cytisine, delivering a RR of 3.75 (95% CI 2.83 to 4.97), with a level of heterogeneity not relevant (I²= 18%) following the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect (FE) model (Figure 4). Following the sensitivity analysis, by removing from the analysis the trials classified as having a high risk of bias (Pastorino 2022; Phusahat 2022), a slight decrease in the estimate of the effect is found (RR 3.02; 95% CI: 1.89 to 4.82), but also decreased the I² value to 9%. Likewise, the analysis remained robust to additional adjustments following the random effects (RE) model (RR 3.46, 95% CI 2.45 to 4.89; participants = 2134; I² = 18%) and in other summary statistics, delivering an OR of 4.68 (95% CI 3.42 to 6.41; I²= 27%). This trials reported smoking cessation at longest follow up: Vinnikov 2008 assed their participants to 24 weeks, Phusahat 2022 to 48 weeks, Pastorino 2022 to 52 weeks and West 2011 to 54 weeks. In Levshin 2009 we only pooled abstinence rates reported at 12 weeks, because although the authors stated that biochemical validation was performed at follow-up after 12 weeks, it was not detailed in the report that we have been able to access. In addition, Pastorino 2022 it was the only RCT among these trials that used an alternative dosing schedule.

We excluded Nides 2021 from the efficacy findings due its short follow-up (8 weeks). Also we excluded Scharfenberg 1971, from the efficacy findings because the risk of bias was unclear, and used self-reported point prevalence abstinence without biochemical validation. In a sensitivity analysis RR from combining the five trials at six months was 2.51 (95% CI 2.07 to 3.03) with an incremental of I² statistic from 31% to 82%, which indicated a high level of heterogeneity, following the FE model (weight of 60%). The RE model delivering an RR 2.87 (95% CI 1.61 to 5.11) also with high level of heterogeneity (I²= 82%)

We also did not pooled the findings of these five trials with Dogar 2020 because, after a sensitivity analysis, a difference in estimate was obtained by substantially increasing the level of inconsistency.The RR from combining the six trials was 1.45 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.61) with a I² of 93%, which indicated a high level of heterogeneity, following the FE model (weight of 86.6%). This was the largest trial of cytisine for smoking cessation to date, and was the first such trial to be done across two countries (Bangladesh and Pakistan). The key difference between this trial and those included in the previous cytisine was the participants included. In Dogar 2020 the participants were recently diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis and, as part of behavioural support, learned about the association between smoking and their condition. The assessment of adherence to the trial medication was self-reported. Considering the complexity of the cytisine dosing schedule and anti-tuberculosis co-medication, adherence to cytisine might have been lower than reported. Another difference was that the mean number of cigarettes smoked per day, being lower than in others trials (11.1 ± 8.1 cigarettes daily). In West 2011 the mean number of cigarettes smoked daily in the cytisine group was 23.0 ± 8.7; in Vinnikov 2008 was 21.7 ± 6.9; in Levshin 2009 was 22 ± 9.2; in Phusahat 2022 was 19.04 ± 9.27 and in Pastorino 2022 the patients were heavy tobacco users with more than 30 pack-years (median of 43, and interquartile range of 35 to 52).

1.2 Outcome: Smoking cessation rate at least six months

In this particular outcome we pooled the findings of four RCT (Vinnikov 2008; West 2011; Pastorino 2022; Phusahat 2022), covering 1938 participants, delivering a RR of 3.80 (95% CI 2.82 to 5.11; studies = 4) using the Mantel-Haenszel FE model, with a moderate level of heterogeneity (I²= 35% ), as show in Figure 5. The sensitivity analysis with additional adjustments following the RE model delivery a RR of 3.40 (95% CI 2.17 to 5.32) with moderate level of heterogeneity (I ²= 35%) but in other summary statistics, delivering an OR of 4.69 (95% CI 3.38 to 6.51) with an increased of I² value of 51%.Removing the trials rated at high risk of bias (Pastorino 2022, Phusahat 2022) from the analysis, slightly decreased the effect estimate (RR 3.27, 95% CI 1.82 to 5.87) but also decreased the I² value to 7.

1.3 Subgroup: Income level of study population

Three smoking cessation trials with cytisine (Dogar 2020; Vinnikov 2008; Phusahat 2022) were done in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Treating the trials as a subgroup of the main analysis (Analysis 1.1) the pooled analysis at longest follow-up deliver a RR of 1.13 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.27; participants = 2801; studies) with a high level of heterogeneity (I²= 67%). This may be linked to the negative findings of the Dogar 2020 trial. The remaining trials (Levshin 2009; West 2011 and Pastorino 2022 ) in upper/middle-high income countries (MHICs) deliver a RR of 3.76 (95% CI 2.80 to 5.05) with a moderate level of heterogeneity (I²= 45%). Removing the open-label trial (Pastorino 2022, rated at high risk of bias for blinding) from the analysis, decreased the effect estimate with a RR of 2.73 (95% CI 1.69 to 4.42) but also decreased the I² value to 0 % (Figure 6).

1.4 Subgroup: Cytisine in association with behavioural therapy

Seven clinical trials (Vinnikov 2008; Levshin 2009; West 2011; Dogar 2020; Nides 2021; Pastorino 2022; Phusahat 2022) that evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of cytisine versus placebo, provided some type of behavioral therapy. These interventions have multiple domains and can be classified by intensity (very brief, brief, intensive), frequency of contact, modality of contact, type of provider, their specific content, or even the underlying psychological theory (Michie S 2011). Taking this taxonomy into account, we were unable to extract sufficient data to perform a subgroup analysis considering the complete absence of behavioral therapy or the specific type of behavioral therapy technique. These details could be important not only to know which components are more effective, but also for their replicability in daily clinical practice. However, we consider only the intensity of therapy reported for sensitivity analysis by subgroups. In West 2011 and Dogar 2020 the behavioural support were kept to a minimum to simulate what might happen in a routine clinical situation, and the pooled analysis deliver a RR of 1.15 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.29 ) with a high level of heterogeneity (I²= 89%). Again, these results could be due to the negative results of Dogar 2020. In the remaining trials (Vinnikov 2008; Levshin 2009;Pastorino 2022 Phusahat 2022) the intensity of therapy was higher, and pooled analysis shows a RR 3.81 (95% CI 2.81 to 5.17; participants = 1394; studies) with a moderate level of heterogeneity (I²= 38%; Figure 7). In Phusahat 2022, trained community pharmacists provided smoking cessation counselling five times (before participation, week 1, week 2, week 4, and week 12) and could be considered the trial with the most intense behavioral therapy.

1.5 Subgroup: number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD)

Only two clinical trials enrolled participants who smoked less than 10 cigarettes/day. In Scharfenberg 1971 2.5% of participants smoked < 10 CPD. In Dogar 2020, the mean was 9.8 CPD for participants in Bangladesh. Considering the risk of bias and level of heterogeneity in these trial, we decided not to pooled the findings.

2. Cytisine vs NRT

Combining the findings of the two RCT (Walker 2014; Tindle 2022), which compared the efficacy of cytisine versus NRT, involving 1511 participants, 755 of whom took cytisine, delivering a RR of 1.40 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.80) with a low level of heterogeneity (I²= 0%) using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect (FE) model (Figure 8). The analysis remained robust to additional adjustments following the RE model (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.73; studies = 2; I² = 8%) and in other summary statistics, delivering an OR of 1.50 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.95; I²= 0%). In Walker 2014 (weight = 85%) cytisine was not only non-inferior to NRT but had superior effectiveness, with a RR of 1.43, (95% CI 1.13 to 1.80) covering 1310 participants. Likewise 1-month continuous abstinence rates (primary outcome in this trial) were significantly higher in the cytisine group (40%, 264 of 655) than in the NRT group (31%, 203 of 655), with a RR 1.30 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.51). However, we considered this trial to be at high risk of bias (rated at high risk of bias for blinding), in addition to presenting a primary outcome of smoking cessation assed without biochemical validation. In contrast to this trial, Tindle 2022 found cytisine and NRT to had similar efficacy for this outcome at six months (RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.86) and 12 months (RR= 1.19 95% CI 0.66, 2.13), with a low risk of bias. Participants received 8 weeks of active NRT mouth spray (contained 1mg of nicotine) and smoking cessation was bio chemically validated.

3. Cytisine vs Varenicline

Three trials (Courtney 2021; Tindle 2022; Walker 2021), which compared the efficacy of cytisine versus varenicline, involving 2331 participants, 1162 of whom took cytisine.

Two of these clinical trials used a non-inferiority design. In Courtney 2021 the smoking cessation rate at six months verified by co-oximetry was 11.7% for the cytisine group and 13.3% for the varenicline group with a risk difference, -1.62% in favour of varenicline (1-sided 97.5% CI, -5.02% to infinity; P=0.03 for non-inferiority). Therefore this trial could not demonstrate the non-inferiority of cytisine versus varenicline. However, it should be noted that the study analyses smoking cessation rate at 6 months (3 months after finishing treatment with varenicline and 5 months after cytisine treatment). Could have been more reasonable to analyse the abstinence to the 3 months after finishing each treatment (6 months in the varenicline group and 4 months in cytisine group). Walker 2021 reported that cytisine was non-inferior to varenicline, but not clearly superior: the smoking cessation rate at six months were 12.1% (41 of 337) for cytisine versus 7.9% (27 of 342) for varenicline with a risk difference of 4.29 (95% CI = 0.22 to 8.79, risk ratio = 1.55; 95% CI = 0.97–2.46). Imputation was used form missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses yielded results that were consistent with the primary findings. Secondary cessation outcomes at 3, 6 and 12 months were also consistent with the primary outcome. However both trials had relevant methodological differences. The second trial used a non-inferiority margin of 10% (while Courtney 2021 used a margin of 5%). The cytisine treatment regimen differed (25 days in Courtney 2021 vs 12 weeks in Walker 2021). Also, participants in Walker 2021 were adult daily smokers who identified as Māori or whānau of Māori.

In Tindle 2022 at 6 months, the authors reported that no significant differences in abstinence were detected considering the biochemically validated 7-day point prevalence for any of the arms compared, including arm 1 (active varenicline and placebo NRT) versus 3. (active cytisine and NRT with placebo). They reported an OR of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.35-1.78). Results were similar at 3 and 12 months.

Pooling these data not demonstrated a clear benefit for cytisine compared versus varenicline, with a RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) with a moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I² = 60%). A sensitivity analysis removing the trials with a high risk of bias (Courtney 2021; Walker 2021) did not change this conclusion.

4. Incidence of adverse events (AEs)

4.1 Non-serious adverse events

I.Cytisine vs placebo.Eight RCTs (Scharfenberg 1971; Vinnikov 2008; Levshin 2009; West 2011; Dogar 2020; Nides 2021; Pastorino 2022; Phusahat 2022) provide data on non-serious adverse events (AEs). Scharfenberg 1971 reported mild AEs like nausea, and others (restlessness, irritability, and insomnia) at similar rates between the cytisine and placebo groups over four weeks of follow-up. Only nine patients in Vinnikov 2008 experienced AEs and stopped using either cytisine (4 patients with 5 AEs) or placebo (5 patients, 5 AEs); the most frequent were dyspepsia, nausea and headache. In Levshin 2009 the most frequent AEs were headache and dizziness, which occurred in 11.3% of participants taking cytisine and 2.5% of participants taking placebo. The authors reported that participants in the cytisine group were 3 to 4 times more likely to have headache, chest pain, and palpitations compared with the placebo group. In West 2011 203 non-serious AEs were reported, 120 in the cytisine group and 83 in the placebo group, involving 135 participants (76 in the cytisine arm and 59 in the placebo arm). Gastrointestinal symptoms were more frequent in participants receiving cytisine (13.8%, 51 participants) than in those receiving placebo (8.1%, 30 participants) with a RR of 1.7 (95% CI: 1.1 to 2.6). In turn, in Dogar 2020, the authors reported that 98 (7.9%) of 1239 patients in the cytisine arm and 86 (7.0%) of 1233 patients in the placebo arm had one or more non-serious AEs (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.50). The most frequent reported in the cytisine arm were fever, vomiting, heartburn, and musculoskeletal pain. In Nides 2021, in the cytisiniline (cytisine) 1.5 mg down-titration arm (N = 51), 27 participants had one or more AEs, being the most frequently reported nausea (5.9%), abnormal dreams (7, 8%) and upper respiratory tract infection (5.9%). Considering all the participants (N=254) in the 2 administration schemes [down-titration versus 3 times daily (TID)], 131 participants had AEs, and also the most frequent were upper respiratory tract infection (7.9%) , abnormal dreams (7.5%) and nausea (6.7%). While in Pastorino 2022 the authors reported a total of 629 AEs (399 in the cytisine group and 230 in the control group), which involved a total of 256 participants: 34 % (158 of 470) in the intervention arm and 24.6% (98 of 399) in the control arm. The most frequent AEs in cytisne arm were sleep disorders (57 of 470, 12.1%), nausea and vomiting (40 of 470, 8.5%), and increased appetite and weight gain (19 of 470, 4.0%). No differences in the AEs were observed between the standard and prolonged treatments. Finally, in Phusahat 2022 a total of 37 AEs (N= 67; 55.22%) were observed in the cytisine group, while 26 adverse events (N= 65; 40 %) were observed in the placebo group. Most adverse events were diarrhoea, abdominal distension, dizziness, drowsiness, dry mouth, and sore throat. The number of gastrointestinal AEs was similar between the cytisine and placebo, which was < 5%. The rates of each AE were similar between groups, except for headaches (3 of 67, 4.48% only in cytisine group) and insomnia (8 of 67, 11.94% in cytisine group vs 1 of 65, 1.54% in placebo group).

We pooled the data from all non-serious AEs in the cytisine groups versus placebo groups yielded a RR of 1.24 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.39; participants = 5895; studies = 8; I² = 0%) Figure 9). The most frequently reported non-serious AEs across the clinical trials was gastrointestinal symptoms, which occurred with a greater frequency in the cytisine group than in the placebo group. The analysis remained robust to additional adjustments following the RE model (RR= 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.39; I²= 0%) and in other summary statistics, delivering an OR of 1.33 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.53; I²= 0%)

II. Cytisine vs NRT. In Walker 2014, the authors reported that non-serious AEs occurred more frequently in the cytisine group (288 events reported by 204 participants) versus the NRT group (174 events reported by 134 participants), with an IRR of 1.7 (95% CI 1,4 to 2.0; P< 0.001). The most frequent AEs in the cytisine group were gastrointestinal (nausea and vomiting) and sleep disorders. While in Tindle 2022 AEs also occurred more frequently in the cytisine group (31 events reported by 86 participants) than in NRT group (20 events among 55 participants). The most frequently reported non-serious AEs in they cytisine group were elevated AST/ALT and nausea.

III. Cytisine vs Varenicline. Courtney 2021 reported non-serious AEs over 7 months occurred more frequently in the varenicline group (1206 events among 510 participants) compared with the cytisine group (997 events among 482 participants).The most frequently reported AEs were abnormal dreams (25.4% in varenicline group and 16.6% in cytisine group) and nausea (27.2% in varenicline group versus 10.9% in cytisine group). While Walker 2021 reported non-serious AEs over 6 months occurred significantly also more frequently in the varenicline group (509 events in 138 participants) compared with the cytisine group (313 events among 111 participants). The most frequently reported AEs were headache (11.7% in varenicline group and 10.4% in cytisine group), and nausea (15.8% in varenicline group and 7.4% in cytisine group). Finally, in Tindle 2022 reported AEs more frequently in the cytisine group (31 events reported by 86 participants) than in Varenicline group (24 events among 91 participants).

4.2 Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

I.Cytisine vs placebo. There were no significant differences in SAEs between cytisine groups and placebo groups in the included RCTs. Scharfenberg 1971 and Levshin 2009 didn`t detail information about the incidence of SAEs, while Vinnikov 2008 and Phusahat 2022 didn`t report SAEs. West 2011 reported 7 (4 in the cytisine group and 3 in the placebo group), none of which were medication related. In Dogar 2020, 53 (4.3%) of 1239 participants in the cytisine group and 46 (3.7%) of 1233 participants in the placebo group reported SAEs (94 events in the cytisine group and 90 events in the placebo group), which included 91 deaths (49 in the cytisine group and 42 in the placebo group). Again none of the SAEs were attributed to cytisine. In Nides 2021 no participant experienced SAE. Finally, Pastorino 2022 reported 92 SAEs: 48 in the intervention arm and 44 in the placebo group; 4 deaths were observed: 2 in the intervention arm and 2 in the control arm; none SAE was attributable to cytisine.

II. Cytisine vs NRT. In Walker 2014 SAEs were self-reported in 6.9% of participants in the cytisine group and 6.0% in those in the NRT group (RR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.85–1.85). There were two deaths (one participant in the cytisine group and one in the NRT group) but neither death was deemed to be treatment-related. Also inTindle 2022 there were no SAEs related to study medication.

III. Cytisine vs Varenicline. In Courtney 2021 the authors reported no significant between-group difference in SAEs for the cytisine (n = 17) and the varenicline groups (n = 32), resulting in an IRR of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.55 -1.73, P = .92). While Walker 2021 reported 35 SAEs (cytisine: 16 events in 16 participants; varenicline: 19 events in 17 participants). Only 2 SAEs were assessed as possibly related to treatment: 1 in the cytisine group (depression) and 1 in the varenicline group (cholecystectomy). Again, in Tindle 2022 no SAEs were attributed to cytisine or varenicline.

Discussion

This review and meta-analysis covers 12 RCT of cytisine. Full searches were conducted to March 2022, although we have included others trials which we obtained later this date (October 2022).

Summary of main results

The current available evidence from 5 RCTs ( Vinnikov 2008; Levshin 2009; West 2011; Pastorino 2022; Phusahat 2022), indicates that cytisine is an effective smoking cessation treatment increasing the chances of quitting compared to placebo (smoking cessation rate at longest follow-up: RR= 3.75, 95% CI 2.83 to 4.97; participants = 2134; I²= 18% ; Figure 4; smoking cessation rate at least six months: RR= 3.80, 95% CI 2.82 to 5.11; participants = 1938; I²= 35%; Figure 5). These data are consistent with those found in previous systematic reviews (Hajek 2013; Cahill 2016; Tutka 2019). We must emphasize that in some clinical trials, the absolute quit rates were modest, reporting 9% for cytisine and 1% for placebo at 24 weeks in Vinnikov 2008; 25% for cytisine and 12% for placebo at 12 weeks in Levshin 2009; 8.4% for cytisine and 2.4% for placebo at 52 weeks in West 2011. Some authors have suggested that these results are due to the minimal behavioral support provided in some clinical trials (Cahill 2016; Hajek 2013; West 2011). On the other hand, the overall quit rate was significantly higher in Pastorino 2022 (32.1% in cytisine group versus 7.3% in control arm) and in Phusahat 2022 (14.93% in cytisine group versus 6.15% in placebo group) at 48 weeks. The effect size was lower than what was observed in one RCT (West 2011) which showed a 3.4-fold higher treatment effect size. The authors emphasized that this effect would be due to behavioral therapy which was considered the clinical trial with the highest intensity behavioral therapy. In the subgroup analysis, those trials with a higher intensity of behavioral therapy (Levshin 2009; Vinnikov 2008;Pastorino 2022; Phusahat 2022) presented a stable estimate (RR= 3.81, 95% CI 2.81 to 5.17; I² = 38%; Figure 7) , compared to those trials in which therapy was kept to a minimum.

However, these estimates it were not stables, according to a recent pragmatic trial (Dogar 2020). So-called pragmatic (practical or effectiveness) clinical trials evaluate clinically relevant interventions in usual circumstances in the clinical practice, enrolling heterogeneous participants with minimal exclusion criteria, and collect data on a wide range of health outcomes (Tunis 2003). These trials enrolled groups normally excluded from traditional clinical trials, like in this case, smokers in LMICs, and in disease-specific populations, like tuberculosis. In subgroup analyzes conducted by the authors, they reported a non-significant difference in quit rates in favor of cytisine among those participants who were exclusively smokers (34% in the cytisine group vs. 31% in the placebo group).Furthermore, assessment of adherence to trial medications was self-reported and, considering the complexity of the cytisine dosing schedule and tuberculosis treatment, adherence to study medication might have been even lower than reported. In addition, a small number of women were recruited, which could further limit the generalizability of the findings.

The number needed to treat (NNT) is defined as the expected number of people who need to receive the experimental rather than the comparator intervention for one additional person to either incur or avoid an event in a given time frame (Cochrane Handbook 2022).Cumulative event proportions or risks depend on the duration of follow-up during which events that occur are counted and would have been counted, had they occurred (Laupacis 1988). In a Cochrane´s review (Cahill 2016) the authors calculated the NNT for varenicline, all types of NRT and bupropion was 11 (95% CI: 9, 13), 23 (95% CI: 20, 25) and 22 (95% CI: 18, 28), respectively. Using the compiled data and absolute risk reduction without advanced statistics modelling gives an NNT for varenicline versus placebo, bupropion, and NRT of 6, 15, and 20, respectively (Crawford 2017). We calculated an NNT as the inverse of the absolute risk reduction (1/ARR), from the incidence of smoking cessation at least six-months (20 % in cytisine group versus 5% in control group), and we estimates an NNT of 6 (6.7).

Two trials (Walker 2014; Tindle 2022), compared the efficacy of cytisine versus NRT with dissimilar results.The combination of both studies yields modest results in favour of cytisine (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.73; participants = 1511; I² = 0%).

Three recent trials (Courtney 2021; Walker 2021; Tindle 2022) comparing cytisine versus varenicline, and two of these had a non-inferiority design. Courtney 2021 could not demonstrate the non-inferiority of cytisine versus varenicline. In a post hoc analysis, the authors highlight that when the smoking cessation rate was compared at 4 weeks after starting each treatment, it was found that while the 7-day point prevalence for abstinence was 42.5% in the cytisine group (308 of 725), in the varenicline group it was 32.3% (235 of 727) with a RD of 10.2% (95% CI, 5.2-15.1%; P<0.001). This data could reflect that to the same period of time of treatment cytisine is as effective, or even more so, than varenicline. The second trial (Walker 2021) reported that cytisine was at least as effective as varenicline at supporting smoking abstinence (smoking cessation rate at six months for cytisine: RR= 1.55; 95% CI = 0.97–2.46). Cytisine was not clearly superior, with absolute quit rates pretty modest: 12.1% for cytisine versus 7.9% for varenicline (RD = 4.29).

Adverse events

Cytisine had a benign safety profile, with no evidence of serious safety concerns across clinical trials compared with placebo. The most frequently reported non-serious AEs was gastrointestinal symptoms that were found to be mild and transient, with rates between 3.4% (Vinnikov 2008) to 13.8% (West 2011). Discontinuation rate, or reduction in dose due to the appearance of adverse effects was 4.7% in the cytisine group vs. 4.7% in the placebo group in Vinnikov 2008, and 6.2% in the cytisine group versus 4.6% in placebo in West 2011. Levshin 2009 did not report a discontinuation rate. Also Dogar 2020 did not report discontinuation rate, but the self-reported medication compliance was high (>90%) and similar in both treatment groups. Cytisine was well tolerated in tuberculosis patients who smoke. In Nides 2021 cytisine treatment at all dosing and administration schedules was well tolerated with few AEs and minimal discontinuation rate (3 participants in cytisine group and 2 in placebo group).Finally, in Pastorino 2022 13.8% (65 of 470) discontinued treatment in the intervention arm, and among them, 63.1% (41 of 65) stopped cytisine owing to AEs.There were no significant differences in SAEs between cytisine and placebo in all RCTs included.

In the trials that compared cytisine versus NRT (Walker 2014,Tindle 2022) the frequency of appearance of any adverse event was greater in the cytisine group than in the NRT group. The most frequent adverse events in the cytisine group were nausea, vomiting, sleep disorders and elevated AST/ALT.There were no SAEs related to study medications.

According to the results of the two non-inferiority trials that compared cytisine versus varenicline (Courtney 2021; Walker 2021), non-serious AEs attributed to varenicline were more frequent than those attributed to cytisine. The most frequently reported non-serious AEs across the clinical trials was mild gastrointestinal symptoms, which occurred with a greater frequency in the varenicline group than in the placebo group.It is noteworthy that abnormal dreams and nausea were reported more frequently in the group of varenicline. Acording the authors in Walker 2021, the lower incidence of nausea in the cytisine group is probably due to cystine's lower potency at 5‐HT3 receptors (Lummis et al 2020).

The included RCT excluded participants with cardiovascular diseases, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or severe forms of major depression and bipolar disorder.

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

We do not perform a funnel plot because as a rule of thumb, tests for funnel plot asymmetry should be used only when there are at least 10 studies included in the main analysis, because when there are fewer studies the power of the tests is too low to distinguish chance from real asymmetry (Cochrane Handbook 2022).

Although the traditional explanatory RCTs are considered the gold standard for establishing the efficacy of interventions, their strict exclusion and exclusion criteria in controlled settings and summary measures, do not provide policy makers with clear information about how an intervention might be replicated (Moore 2015). The public health impact of smoking cessation medications depends not only on their efficacy, but also on their acceptability in diverse settings and heterogeneous populations. In this sense, unlike other drugs, cytisine has been approved for prescription and/or over-the-counter (OTC) use in 18 European Union (EU) countries (as an OTC product in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland), eight non-EU countries (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Serbia) and five Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), and more recently has been approved in Canada as an OTC natural health product (Tutka 2019). Some authors (WHO 2021) postulate that this natural product status of cytisine (i.e., it is obtained from plantation-grown plants, not synthesized in a laboratory, like varenicline or bupropion) could increase its acceptability and use among indigenous peoples, or in countries where the use of herbal medicines is widespread (eg, China, India).

Quality of the evidence

The evidence quality was evaluated by the GRADE system. In the primary analysis for the comparission of cytisine versus placebo (smoking cessation rate at longest follow-up and smoking cessation rate at least six months) we judge the current evidence to be of low level of quality, meaning that the true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect (Figure 10). This is because the total number of events in each arm is less than 300, being insufficient to meet the OIS criteria (Cochrane Handbook 2022). Regarding the second critical comparison (incidence of AEs), we judge the available evidence to be of high quality meaning thant we have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect. For the remaining comparisons that we consider important, we judge the evidence as low and very low level of quality.

Potential biases in the review process

According to our protocol, a comprehensive search was conducted until March 2022. However, the search was extended after that date in order to include as many RCTs as possible. Using the same detailed strategy, we ran a new search of all databases up to October 2022.

Information on the safety of cytisine comes exclusively from the RCT. Studies with other designs, which could be valuable in providing pharmacovigilance information on adverse effects, were not included.

The first studies about cytisine, were published in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Being that these were in non-English language journals, which may not be indexed in the major biomedical databases, their accessibility was limited (Prochaska 2013). After the fall of the Soviet Union, many of the former socialist countries withdrew cytisine from the market when they joined the European Union. Therefore, the language of the publications (language bias), the low methodological quality and their presence in electronic databases from Eastern Europe could contribute to increase the non-reporting biases. Although in our search strategy we included the Russian electronic library database (www.elibrary.ru), and we translated the articles from Russian, German and Bulgarian into English, we were unable to obtain the advice of a professional translator.Also, we were unable to perform a funnel plot to detect publication bias.

Only two RCTs were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (Nides 2021; West 2011). However, in a sensitivity analysis removing these trials, did not change the main results.

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

We had identified seven newly RCTs (Dogar 2020; Courtney 2021; Nides 2021; Walker 2021; Pastorino 2022; Tindle 2022; Phusahat 2022) that were not considered in any of the preceding review (Etter 2006; Hajek 2013; Cahill 2016; Tutka 2019). Most of the trials excluded in our review were evaluated in previous systematic reviews (Tutka 2019). Among them, none have presented direct comparisons with Varenicline or reported the effect of cytisine in specific populations of smokers, such as people with tuberculosis, HIV or alcohol dependence. A recent network meta-analysis (Shang 2022) supports our findings, and their results about overall abstinence rate, showed that cytisine was superior to placebo (OR=2.06; 95% CI= 1.20-3.52), and compared to others therapies had similar efficacy to NRT (OR= 1.13; 95% CI= 0.65-1.97) and Bupropion (OR= 1.21; 95% CI= 0.69-2.12). Likewise, in comparison with varenicline it shows similar results, only slightly in favour of the latter in the overall abstinence rate (OR= 1.26; 95% CI= 0.73-2.15) and in the continuous abstinence rate (OR=1, 31; 95% CI= 0.81-2.10). In overall abstinence rate, the smoking cessation effect were ranked as follows, Mecamylamine + NRT (93.8%), Varenicline + Bupropion (87.0%), Varenicline + NRT (86.9%), Varenicline (76.9%), Cytisine (59.1%), Bupropion + NRT (57.1%), Nortriptyline (52.5%), NRT (51.2%) and Bupropion (44.1%), Topiramate (35.2%), Selegiline (28.3%), Fluoxetine (28.1%), Clonidine (22.9%), Naltrexone (13.7%), and Placebo (13.3%).

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice

  • Cytisine at standard dosage (1.5 to 9 mg per day for 25 days) increased the chances of successful smoking cessation by more than three-fold compared with placebo.
  • Limited evidence suggested that the greater intensity of behavioral therapy was directly associated with the efficacy of cytisine for smoking cessation.
  • The confirmed efficacy of cityisine was not evidenced in trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries
  • Cytisine had a benign safety profile, with no evidence of serious safety concerns across clinical trials compared with placebo. The most frequently reported non-serious AEs was gastrointestinal symptoms that were found to be mild and transient.
  • Limited evidence suggested than cytisine is safe in specific populations of smokers, such as people with tuberculosis, HIV or alcohol dependence. However, the confirmed efficacy of cityisine was not evidenced in these populations.
  • Limited evidence suggests that cytisine may be slightly more effective than NRT, with modest cessation rates.
  • Limited evidence suggests that cytisine might have similar efficacy to varenicline.

Implications for research

  • Further cytisine trials may be useful in specific populations of smokers excluded from the earlier trials.
  • Additional trials of cytisine are needed to explore variations in the drug regimen
  • More investigations should fully consider assess the cost-effectiveness and economic evaluations of community-based tobacco dependence interventions, considering the cytisine.

Acknowledgements

We thank Agustín Ciapponi, MD of Argentine Cochrane Centre for advice and support on the content of the procol of this review. We thank the team of the Institute of Clinical Efficacy and Health Policies (IECS-CONICET) of Argentina, for their advice and continuous support. We want to thank Professor Stjepan Oreskovic of University of Zagreb School of Medicine; Hilary Tindle, MD,associate Professor of Medicine and the William Anderson Spickard, Jr., MD Chair in Medicine; Daniel Cain, Vice President, Clinical Research of Achieve Life Sciences, for their kind response to our letters, requesting information about the respective ongoing clinical trials.

Contributions of authors

All authors contributed to the conception, search terms and methodology of the review. ODS conceived the idea for the study. ODS and CAD designed the study. All authors have read and approve the final version

Declarations of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Differences between protocol and review

According to our protocol, a comprehensive search was conducted until March 2022. However, the search was extended after that date.

Published notes

-

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies

Courtney 2021

Methods

Aim: to examine whether standard cytisine treatment (25 days) was at least as effective as standard varenicline treatment (84 days) for smoking cessation

Study Design: noninferiority, open-label randomized clinical trial. The RCT was conducted primarily by telephone and the study drugs were delivered by mail.

Setting: New South Wales and Victoria

Country: Australia

Analysis: the study was designed to have 90% power at the 1-sided significance level of 0.25 to detect a non-inferiority margin of 5% in 6 month biochemically verified continuous abstinence rates between groups at 7-month follow-up.

Participants

A total of 1452 Australian adult daily smokers willing to make a quit attempt were included

Interventions

Cytisine (n = 725), 1.5-mg capsules taken 6 times daily initially then gradually reduced over the 25-day course; varenicline (n = 727), 0.5-mg tablets titrated to 1 mg twice daily for 84 days (12 weeks).All participants were offered standard quit line support, which consisted of a free telephone-based call-back service for smokers, providing up to 6 behavioral support calls and a kit containing written information about quitting smoking.

Outcomes

Primary outcome: was continuous abstinence from smoking (self-report of not having smoked >5 cigarettes during the 6-month period preceding the 7-month follow-up) that was verified by a carbon monoxide breath test (expired carbon monoxide level of ≤9 ppm).

Secondary outcome: abstinence outcome measures were self-reported: 3- and 6-month continuous abstinence; 7-day point prevalence abstinence measured at the second check-in call (approximately 4 weeks after baseline − the post hoc analysis) and at 4-month and 7-month follow-up; and cigarette consumption at each follow-up

Notes

Funding: project grant 11083318 and career development fellowship grant 1148497 (awarded Dr Courtney) from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

"A data management system (UNICOM Intelligence) located at the social research center was used to assign a unique randomization number to study participants using a pregenerated randomization list embedded in the system"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

"Baseline and follow-up computer-assisted telephone interviews were completed by employees of an independent organization (social research center) who were blinded to treatment allocation"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)High risk

"Participants and trial coordinating center staff were not blinded to treatment allocation. Due to the nature of the intervention, only single blinding (i.e., outcome assessment by the independent social research center) was possible. Because the 2 treatments looked different (capsule vs tablet) and had a contrasting dosing regimen and length of treatment, the participants could not be blinded."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)Low risk

outcome assessment by independent social research center

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Low risk

"The sensitivity analyses for the primary outcome showed a non significant result when participants with missing smoking status were excluded"

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low risk

All expected and predicted outcomes reported

Other biasUnclear risk

Dogar 2020

Methods

Aim: to assess the effectiveness and safety of cystine as a smoking cessation aid in patients with tuberculosis

Study Design: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Setting: 32 health centres (17 sub district hospitals in Bangladesh and 15 secondary care hospitals in Pakistan located in urban and rural areas)

Country: Bangladesh and Pakistan

Analysis: were based on the ITT principle

Participants

patients were adults (aged >18 years in Bangladesh; aged >15 years in Pakistan) with pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosed in the previous 4 weeks, who smoked tobacco on a daily basis and were willing to stop smoking.

2472 patients (1527 patients from Bangladesh; 945 patients from Pakistan) were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive behavioural support plus either cytisine (n=1239) or placebo (n=1233)

Interventions

patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive behavioural support plus either oral cytisine [Desmoxan ®; Aflofarm] 9 mg on day 0, which was gradually reduced to 1.5 mg by day 25 or placebo for 25 days.

Outcomes

Primary outcome: continuous abstinence at 6 months, defined as self-report (of not having used more than five cigarettes, bidis, a water pipe, or smokeless tobacco products since the quit date), confirmed biochemically by a breath carbon monoxide reading of less than 10 parts per million

Secondary outcomes: were continuous abstinence at 12 months; point abstinence at weeks 5 and 12, and 6 and 12 months; early lapses (defined by a self-report of tobacco use [even once] after the quit date, but having point abstinence at week 5) and late lapses (defined by a self report of tobacco use [even once] between week 5 and week 12, but showing point abstinence at week 5 and week 12); clinical tuberculosis score; chest X-ray grade; sputum smear microscopy; adherence to tuberculosis treatment; tuberculosis treatment outcome (success, failure, default, relapse, or death); Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale score; Strength of Urges To Smoke scores; and time to first use of tobacco product of the day (from the Heaviness of Smoking Index).

Notes

Funding: European Union Horizon 2020 and Health Data Research UK. The founder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

"Randomisation lists were pregenerated by the trial statistician at York Trials Unit (University of York) and held securely at the offices of the study partners (ARK Foundation [Dhaka, Bangladesh] and The Initiative [Islamabad, Pakistan]) for sequential allocation by masked trial coordinating staff"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

"Investigators, clinicians, and patients were masked to treatment allocation"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)Low risk

See above

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)Low risk

this trial blinds the allocation of interventions to those who evaluate outcomes

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Low risk

"Missing primary outcome data were treated as a negative outcome (i.e., not abstinent)" "Mising values were imputed using multiple imputation"

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low risk

All expected and predicted outcomes reported

Other biasUnclear risk

Levshin 2009

Methods

Aim: to assess the therapeutic efficacy of cytisine (Tabex ®) in the treatment of tobacco dependence in quitting smokers and to evaluate the possible side effects of the drug

Study Design: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Setting: Department of Prevention of the Russian Cancer Research Center. N.N. Blokhin

Country: Russia

Analysis:

Participants

A total of 210 smokers agreed to participate in the study. With 14 persons, after the first visit and prescription of the drug, it was not possible to subsequently establish contact. Therefore, the analysis of the results of the study was carried out for the studied cohort of 196 people.

Interventions

Individuals included in the study received cytisine (Tabex ®) 1.5 mg intended for oral administration (n=92) or placebo (n=104) over 25 days, with behavioural support.

All patients were offered a minimum of 2 cessation visits for follow-up examinations at 1 and 4 weeks from the start of medication and at least 2 telephone contacts at 3 and 6 months since the start of treatment.

Outcomes

Primary outcome: the criterion for abstinence status (successful withdrawal) was the patient's own information about the complete rejection of tobacco smoking for more than a week by the time of the last contact with him and assessment of his smoking status.

Secondary outcomes: At control examinations, the status of abstinence was necessarily confirmed by measuring the level of CO in the exhaled air, not more than 9 ppm.

Notes

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

Randomization was carried out using a randomization code created by an external statistician, who kept it and made it available to researchers only at the end of the study at the stage of evaluating its results.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

See above

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)Low risk

The placebo drug completely copies the Tabex drug in appearance. The standard course of taking drugs, the same for Tabex and placebo, is 100 tablets for 25 days.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)Unclear risk

not detailed

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Unclear risk

not detailed

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear risk

the authors report measurement of exhaled CO, but it is unclear if it was used after 3 and 6 months of treatment

Other biasUnclear risk

Nides 2021

Methods

Aim: this study evaluated the effects of a higher dosage and simplified dosing schedule on drug efficacy and tolerability

Study Design: double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Setting: multicenter (8 sites)

Country: United State of America

Analysis: the placebo and treatment arms were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment arm (2 levels) and BMI class as a potential confounder (3 levels), and a covariate of baseline cigarettes. All analyses followed the ITT principle.

Participants

254 adult smokers (>10 cigarettes daily) committed to quitting smoking were randomized to compare 2 cytisinicline schedule

Interventions

Participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive:

-Comercial downward titration schedule (n=126) with 1.5 mg cytisine (n=51) and 3 mg cytisine (n=50) versus placebo (n=25)

-Simplified three times daily (TID) schedule (n=128) with 1.5 mg cytisine (n=50), 3 mg cytisine (n=50) versus placebo (n=26).

All participants received approximately 10 minutes of smoking cessation counselling at each clinic visit provided by experienced counsellors.

Outcomes

Primary outcome: was a reduction in expected cigarettes smoked at end of treatment

Secondary outcomes: continuous abstinence were biochemically confirmed 7-day abstinence at Week 4 and from Weeks 5 to 8.

After the study treatment ended, each participant reported whether they had smoked any cigarettes (since the last clinic visit or over the past 7 days) at each of the week 5, 6, 7, and 8 clinic visits with biochemical verification (expired CO reading < 10 ppm).

Notes

Funding: Achieve Life Sciences, Inc

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

"A centralized interactive response technology system was used to assign participants to treatment arms according to a pre-generated randomization scheme"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

"The trial Sponsor and site personnel did not have access to the treatment assignment for individual participants (except in cases of emergency) until the database was locked and final study analysis was performed"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)Low risk

"This was a double-blind study with regard to cytisine versus placebo dosing. However, participants and site staff were unblinded to the treatment schedule (downward titration versus simplified TID) due to packaging and dose-timing requirements. An independent vendor blinded the individual study drug kits"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)Low risk

See above

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Low risk

Dropouts and attrition fully reported

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low risk

All expected and predicted outcomes reported

Other biasUnclear risk

Pastorino 2022

Methods

Aim: to assess the efficacy and tolerability of cytisine as a smoking cessation therapy among lung cancer screening participants.The Screening and Multiple Intervention on Lung Epidemics (SMILE) study was launched in 2019 to test the efficacy of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in combination with a multifactorial preventive intervention, focused on smoking cessation therapy with cytisine and reduction of chronic inflammation with low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (cardioASA) in heavy tobacco users, with the aim of reducing all-cause mortality.

Study Design: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Participants were randomized into the following four different groups: (A) cardioASA, cytisine and smoking cessation counselling; (B) cytisine and counselling; (C) cardioASA and counselling; and (D) only counselling.

Setting: single-center conducted at the Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori of Milan Scientific Directorate

Country: Italy.

Analysis: Proportions were compared by the chi square test or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. Continuous variables were compared by the WilcoxonMann–Whitney test. Differences in smoking cessation in the intervention arm compared with the control arm were evaluated by quit rates and univariate and multivariate logistic regressions, estimating the OR with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The analysis were based on the ITT principle

Participants

A total of 1114 volunteers were recruited and randomized from July 2019 to March 2020, including 869 current tobacco users (78%). Eligible participants were current heavy tobacco users aged 50 to 75 years with more than or equal to 30 pack-years (20-cigarette packs smoked per day) or former tobacco users with more than or equal to 30 pack-years who had stopped since 10 years or less. For the present analysis, the authors considered only current heavy tobacco user (excluding former tobacco user).

Interventions

Cytisine plus counselling (N= 470) versus counselling alone (N= 399).The intervention arm (group A: cytisine 1.5 mg + cardioASA 100 mg and B: cytisine 1.5 mg) was further randomized into the standard schedule of 40 days and a prolonged schedule of 84 days. The intervention arm were offered additional telephone behavioral support.

Outcomes

Primary outcome: continuous smoking abstinence at 12 months, biochemically verified through carbon monoxide measurement.Smoking cessation was defined by a counsellor with confirmation of a CO level of less than or equal to 9 ppm. Expired CO was always tested with the same monitor (piCO, Bedfont Scientific Ltd.)

Secondary outcomes: the point prevalence at 12 months, defined as abstinence for the 7 days before the 1-year visit, with confirmation of CO less than or equal to 9 ppm. Other end points were evaluated, including the reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked from the baseline round to 12 months, the difference between the standard and prolonged treatment, smoking relapses, self reported treatment compliance, and AEs.

Notes

RCT; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03654105

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

"The randomization algorithm had a factorial design which considered three different strata of population according to age (65 versus >65 y), sex, and smoking status (current versus former).

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

"The algorithm was based on the recursive creation of an array of 100 binary values, on their shuffling within the array and the random extraction of one of these values"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)High risk

"Participants and the researchers who collected the outcome data were aware of the treatment allocation at the date of the first appointment"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)High risk

See above. Was an open label study

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Low risk

Losses of follow-up were adequately reported: "..at 12 months was similar in the two groups, being 14.8% (62 of 418) and 16.5% (55 of 332), respectively"

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low risk

All expected and predicted outcomes reported

Other biasUnclear risk

Phusahat 2022

Methods

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cytisine in combination with community pharmacists’ counselling on smoking cessation in a community pharmacy in Thailand

Study Design: randomised, single-center, double-blind, parallel design. Stratified randomization was performed at the setting.The Fagerström test for nicotine dependence score (FTND) was used as the stratifying factor, as 0–3 (minimally nicotine-dependent) and 4–10 (moderately-to-highly nicotine-dependent)

Setting: a pharmacy at the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khon Kaen University.

Country: Thailand

Analysis: Intention-to-treat analysis was applied, with the assumption that participants who lost to follow-up had failed to quit smoking. Chi-square was used to test the primary outcome and other dichotomous outcomes, while a t-test was used to test continuous.

Participants

18–65 years old, smoked >10 cigarettes/day, were willing to quit smoking at a preparation level based on the trans-theoretical model. Participants with the following clinical conditions were excluded; cardiac arrhythmia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic renal disease (e GFR ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 ), psychiatric disorders

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned to the either active drug or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Cytisine treatment regimen was as follows: six tablets of 1.5 mg per day for days 1–3 (one tablet every 2 h), five tablets per day for days 4–12 (one tablet every 2.5 h), four tablets per day for days 13–16 (one tablet every 3 h), three tablets per day for days 17–20 (one tablet every 5 h), and two tablets per day for days 21–25 (one tablet every 6 h). All participants received smoking cessation counselling by trained pharmacists at a community pharmacy a total of five times (before participation, week 1, week 2, week 4, and week 12).

Outcomes

Primary outcome: continuous abstinence rate (CAR) at week 48. The CAR was also measured at weeks 2, 4, 12, and 24. CAR was confirmed by exhaled carbon monoxide (exhaled CO) < 7ppm.

Secondary outcomes: 7-day self-reported point prevalence abstinence (PA), exhaled CO, relapse, health-related quality of life measured by WHOQOLBREF-THAI and EQ-5D-5L (Thai version), and adverse events.

Notes

This study was supported by the Government Pharmaceutical Organization, Thailand (grant No. 4/2561). Trial registration number: TCTR20180312001

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

"A lottery ticket method was used for random participants to receive either cytisine or a placebo. Lottery tickets were prepared and numbered. Ten tickets were put in each of two opaque containers. One was for participants with minimal nicotine dependence, and the other one was for participants with moderate-to-high nicotine dependence"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

See above

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)Low risk

"procedures and randomization results were concealed and blinded to both providers and participants"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)Low risk

See above

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)High risk

"we encountered a number of patients with loss to follow-up. We assumed that patients who lost to follow-up failed to quit smoking"

"..only half of the patients could finish the study as planned"

The reasons for drop out are not detailed

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low risk

All expected and predicted outcomes reported

Other biasUnclear risk

Scharfenberg 1971

Methods

Aim: to test the efficacy of cytisine for smoking cessation

Study Design: double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial

Setting: smoking cessation clinic, Magdeburg.

Country: East Germany

Analysis: Chi squared test (P <0.1). Were based on the ITT principle

Participants

1214 smokers recruited from 1452 (88.2% M) applicants through smoking clinics and via initial press releases

2.5% of participants smoked 30 CPD

Randomised to Cytisine (607) or placebo (607)

Exclusion criteria not stated (214 volunteers excluded at initial screening)

Interventions

A) 20-day course of cytisine [Tabex] 1.5 mg tabs.

Days 1 - 3= 6/day; days 4 - 12= 5/day; days 13 - 16 = 4/day; days 17 - 20= 3/day.

B) Placebo tablets, same regimen

Behavioural support: Unclear

Outcomes

Primary outcome: self-reported abstinence at 4 weeks, 6 months and 2 years. Attrition rate 34% by longest follow-up. Follow-up data at 1, 6, and 24 months were collected by post.No validation of abstinence

Notes

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear risk

not detailed

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear risk

not detailed

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)Unclear risk

not detailed

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)Unclear risk

not detailed

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Unclear risk

not detailed

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear risk

not detailed

Other biasUnclear risk

not detailed

Tindle 2022

Methods

Aim:compare the effects on drinking and smoking of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonists varenicline and cytisine with those of NRT

Study Design: 4-group, randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial conducted from July 2017 to December 2020 . Included participants were 400 individuals with HIV who engaged in risky drinking (5 prior-month heavy-drinking days [HDDs]) and daily smoking; they were followed up for 12 months after enrolment. Data were analysed from May 2021 through June 2022

Setting:in St Petersburg

Country: Russia

Analysis: The St PETER HIV study was designed to have 80% power to detect a difference of 14.1 percentage points in percentage of HDDs for any of 3 pair wise comparisons of interest (varenicline vs NRT, cytisine vs NRT, and varenicline vs cytisine) using a 2-sided t test.This trial was conducted and analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

Participants

400 participants from HIV clinical care sites in St Petersburg, Russia. Eligibility criteria included the following: being ages 18 to 70 years, being HIV positive, engaging in 5 or more HDDs in the prior 30 days, smoking a mean number of 5 or more cigarettes/d, and having a willingness to reduce alcohol consumption, smoking, or both.

Interventions

participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 study groups: active varenicline and placebo NRT mouth spray (group 1, N=100), placebo varenicline and active NRT (group 2, N=100), active cytisine and placebo NRT (group 3, N=100), or placebo cytisine and active NRT (group 4, N=100). Randomization was stratified by 3 factors: alcohol use (3 vs 1 pack/d), and current antiretroviral therapy (ART) use (yes or no). At baseline, participants received brief guideline-based counselling on alcohol and smoking.

NRT mouth spray contained 1 mg of nicotine per spray. Participants were instructed to use 8 sprays/d as a minimum for the first 4 weeks and to use the spray as needed during weeks 5 through 8 up to the maximum recommended daily sprays to control cravings.Cytisine dosing followed the traditional 25-day downward titration schedule of 1.5 mg tablets and varenicline for 12 weeks. At baseline, all participants received brief counselling for smoking and drinking alcohol, began study medication, and were advised to quit smoking on the target quit date (TQD) one week late.

Outcomes

Primary outcome: percentage of HDDs in the prior 30 days, assessed at 3 months using self reported 30-day alcohol consumption obtained via the timeline follow-back (TLFB) method

Secondary outcomes:number of cigarettes/d in the prior 7 days via TLFB and self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 3, 6, and 12 months, with biochemical verification (expired CO reading < 10 ppm).

Notes

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02797587

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

"Randomization is conducted and monitored by the URBAN ARCH Biostatistics and Data Man age ment (BDM) core. The software package SAS was used to generate randomization lists to assign participants as they are enrolled into the study"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

"Study participants, investigators, staff, and physicians administering the medications are unaware to which of the 4 arms a participant is as signed"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)Low risk

See above

"Placebo and active study medications were indistinguishable by appearance and taste"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)Low risk

"Although theoretically possible to double blind this study, it would not have been practical or feasible be cause the regimens for varenicline and cytisine are very different and would therefore require complex regimens to incorporate the necessary number of placebos. Participants assigned to either nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) partial agonist arm (varenicline or cytisine) are blinded to whether the study medication is active or placebo"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Low risk

Dropouts and attrition fully reported

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low risk

All expected and predicted outcomes reported

Other biasUnclear risk

Vinnikov 2008

Methods

Aim: assess the efficacy and safety of cytisine [Tabex] in medium-dependent smoking men working in mining industry

Study Design: randomized controlled double-blind trial compared to placebo

Setting: mining company

Country: Kyrgyzstan

Analysis: Wilcoxon test or analysis of variance. The primary outcome measures were evaluated using a logistic regression analysis. Were based on the ITT principle

Participants

171 middle-aged smokers. They were recruited via an advertisement at their workplace, and 350 subjects expressed their wish to participate. Randomised to cytisine (100) or placebo (97). 26 (15 cytisine, 11 placebo) who took no medication were excluded from trial report.

Interventions

Cytisine in 25-days regimen (Tabex group, N= 85) or placebo (N= 86); both groups received individual counselling with brochure.

One group received cytisine tablets according to the manufacturer’s instructions: (1) first 3 days smoking should be reduced by half, and each tablet should be taken every 2 hours (6 tablets a day); (2) days 4–12 — smoking must be discontinued, and each tablet should be taken every 2.5 hours (5 tablets a day); (3) days 13–16 — each tablet must be taken every 3 hours (4 tablets a day); (4) days 17–20 — each tablet must be taken every 4 hours (3 tablets a day); (5) days 21–22 — each tablet must be taken every 6 hours (2 tablets a day); and (6) days 23–25 — one tablet a day.The second group was taking placebo tablets using the same regimen. All participants received "behavior counselling" (no further detail)

Outcomes

Primary Outocome: continuous abstinence since the smoking discontinuation from day 5 to the end of week 8 and from day 5 to end of week 26. That was defined as no cigarettes at all and verified with exhaled CO level. Those patients that reported continuous abstinence but had exhaled CO level 9 ppm or more along with those who missed at least one visit were considered smokers.

Secondary outcomes: exhaled CO and change in health-related QL.

Self-reported continuous abstinence was assessed at 8 and 26 weeks.

Biochemical verification was done with exhaled CO monitor, piCO Smokerlyzer (Bedfont, United Kingdom)

Notes

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

"Randomisation was done using randomisation code"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

"Randomisation was done using randomisation code made by a sided statistical scientist, and the code was kept with him"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)Unclear risk

not detailed

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)Low risk

"follow-up was blind"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Unclear risk

they excluded 26 participants who did not take the medication from the denominator. We have reintegrated them for our meta-analysis, to follow the ITT principle.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low risk

All expected and predicted outcomes reported

Other biasUnclear risk

Walker 2014

Methods

Aim: whether cytisine was at least as effective as NRT in smoking cessation

Study Design:parallel-group, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial

Setting: smokers were recruited through the national quit line

Country: New Zeland

Analysis: noninferiority for the primary outcome was evaluated by observing whether the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the risk difference in quit rates between the groups was above the noninferiority limit of −5. The primary analyses were carried out on an ITT basis (participants for whom outcomes were missing were assumed to be smoking). In the case that noninferiority was evident, assessment as to whether cytisine had effectiveness superior to that of NRT was carried out according to the same approach but was compared with a zero difference

Participants

1310 adults were assessed and underwent randomization; 655 were assigned to cytisine and 655 were assigned to NRT.

Interventions

Participants assigned to NRT received vouchers from Quitline that were redeemable from community pharmacies for nicotine patches (in doses of 7 mg, 14 mg, or 21 mg) and for gum (2 mg or 4 mg) or lozenges (1 mg or 2 mg) or both gum and lozenges.

The cytisine group received a 25-day course of tablets. Participants followed the manufacturer’s recommended dosing regimen (1.5 to 9 mg per day for 25 days).

Outcomes

Primary outcome: continuous abstinence from smoking (self-reported abstinence since quit day, with an allowance for smoking a total of five cigarettes or less,21 including during the previous 7 days) 1 month after quit day.

Secondary outcomes: assessed at 1 week and at 1, 2 and 6 months after quit day were self-reported treatment compliance (total number of cytisine tablets taken or the type, strength, and amount of nicotine-replacement therapy used); alcohol use; motivation to quit; symptoms of tobacco withdrawal; and the strength of urges to smoke and the duration of these urges; 7-day point prevalence for abstinence (no cigarettes, not a single puff, in the previous 7 days; continuous abstinence; smoking satisfaction; concomitant medication; and, if still smoking, date returned to daily smoking and the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Validation: None used

Notes

Supported by a grant (10/455) from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The research council, Sopharma, and the Extab Corporation had no role in the design of the trial, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, or the writing of the report for publication

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

"Eligible participants who had called the quit line were randomly allocated, by computer"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

"Randomization was stratified with the use of minimization according to sex, ethnicity (Maori, Pacific Islander, or non-Maori and non–Pacific Islander), and cigarette dependence, which was determined by means of the Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence, in which smokers were assigned to one of two groups: those with scores of 5 or lower, indicating lower dependence, and those with scores greater than 5, indicating greater dependence"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)High risk

"Participants and researchers collecting outcome data were aware of treatment allocation"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)High risk

See above. Was an open label study

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Low risk

Losses of follow-up were adequately reported: 182 (28%) were lost to follow-up in cytisine group, and 173 (26%) in the NRT group.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low risk

All expected and predicted outcomes reported

Other biasUnclear risk

Walker 2021

Methods

Aim: To determine whether cytisine was at least as effective as varenicline in supporting smoking abstinence for ≥ 6 months in New Zealand indigenous Māori or whānau (extended-family) of Māori, given the high smoking prevalence in this population

Study Design: Pragmatic, open-label, randomized, controlled, community-based non-inferiority trial

Setting: Bay of Plenty, Tokoroa and Lakes District Health Board regions

Country: New Zealand (NZ)

Analysis: A planned sample size of 2140 people (1070 per group) assumed 28% loss to follow-up and 90% power at the one-sided significance level of 2.5% to detect a non-inferiority margin of 10% between the two groups at 6 months. Analysed as intention-to-treat (with multiple imputation for missing data)

Participants

Adult daily smokers who identified as Māori or whānau of Māori, were motivated to quit in the next 2 weeks, were aged ≥ 18 years and were eligible for subsidized varenicline. Recruitment used multi-media advertising.

Interventions

A total of 679 people were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive a prescription for a 12-week course of cytisine (Tabex®) or varenicline (Champix®). For cytisine, the standard 25-day dosing regimen was followed. A maintenance dose of cystine was added for day 26 to week 12 (one tablet every 6 hours: two tablets/day) to match the treatment duration of varenicline.

All participants were offered smoking cessation low-intensity behavioural support, to replicate support available in NZ when cessation medications are prescribed by a medical doctor; namely: (1) brief advice delivered by the study doctor immediately after writing the prescription (post-randomization) and (2) referral to community-based cessation services for additional free BHS (delivered through telephone, text, face-to-face, or group counselling).

Outcomes

Primary outcome: was carbon monoxide-verified continuous abstinence at 6 months.

Secondary outcomes: measured at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-quit date included: self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes per day, time to (re)lapse, adverse events, treatment adherence/compliance and acceptability, nicotine withdrawal/urge to smoke and health-care utilization/health-related quality of life.

Abstinence was verified by a researcher or community-based cessation provider, using standardized exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) measurement with a Bedfont Smokerlyzer (Bedfont Scientific Ltd, Kent, UK), with a reading of ≤ 9 parts per million (ppm) signifying abstinence.

Notes

This research was supported by a contract from the Health Research Council of NZ. The founder had no role in development of the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation or writing of the publication

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

"randomization sequence was prepared by the trial statistician using R and loaded into the REDCap database, which was then accessed by the study doctor via a computer at the point of randomization"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

See above

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)High risk

"The trial was open-label, as participants and researchers collecting outcome data were not masked to treatment allocation. Although a double-blind trial would have been ideal, participants were not blinded given the different dosing regimens for the medications and their different appearance"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)High risk

Sea above

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Low risk

Dropouts and attrition fully reported

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low risk

All expected and predicted outcomes reported

Other biasUnclear risk

West 2011

Methods

Aim: assess cytisine’s efficacy and safety in a context that could be replicated globally, with a relatively short treatment course (25 days)

Study Design: single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Setting: smoking-cessation clinic of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, in Warsaw

Country: Poland

Analysis: The absolute percentage-point difference between participants who met the criteria for abstinence in the two groups was tested with the use of Fisher’s exact test. Logistic regression was used to examine efficacy, with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Analysis were based on the ITT principle

Participants

Participants were adults who smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day. 740 Underwent randomization, 370 were assigned to and received cytisine and 370 placebo.

Interventions

The regimen for the study medications consisted of six 1.5-mg tablets per day (one tablet every 2 hours) for 3 days (days 1 through 3), five tablets per day for 9 days (days 4 through 12), four tablets per day for 4 days (days 13 through 16), three tablets per day for 4 days (days 17 through 20), and two tablets per day for the final 5 days (days 21 through 25). The target quit date was scheduled for the fifth day. Behavioural support was minimal, to simulate likelihood of real-world conditions in countries where

Outcomes

Primary outcome: 12 months of abstinence after the end of treatment, with abstinence defined according to the Russell Standard criteria. To be classified as abstinent, participants had to report that they had smoked fewer than five cigarettes in each of the previous 6 months at the 6-month and 12-month follow-up visits and that they had not smoked any cigarettes in the week before the follow-up visit, and they had to have a carbon monoxide concentration in exhaled breath of less than 10 ppm at the 12-month follow-up visit. A carbon monoxide concentration of less than 10 ppm was also required for participants who visited the clinic at 6 months. In addition, participants who visited the clinic 4 weeks after the quit day had to report that they had not smoked in the previous 2 weeks, with abstinence verified by a carbon monoxide concentration of less than 10 ppm.

Secondary outcomes: sustained abstinence for the first 6 months and point prevalence at 12-months, defined as abstinence for the week before the 12-month follow-up visit, with verification by a carbon monoxide concentration of less than 10 ppm.

Attrition: 79 (cytisine) and 89 (placebo) participants were lost to follow-up over 12m. Drug discontinuation or reduction rates similar in both groups: 6.2% for cytisine and 4.6% for

Notes

It was sponsored by University College London, London, and authorized by the Polish Health Ministry

Risk of bias table

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk

"Randomization was performed by a statistician at Sopharma, who generated a list of study-group assignments for 740 participants with nQuery Advisor software"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk

"The assignments were made in variable block sizes of either 20 (10 assignments the cytisine group and 10 to the placebo group) or 10 (5 assignments to each group) to minimize bias over time and to ensure equal groups of 370 participants each"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)Low risk

See above

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)Low risk

"Trial staff and participants were unaware of the group assignments and the randomization scheme"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)Low risk

Dropouts and attrition fully reported

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low risk

All expected and predicted outcomes reported

Other biasUnclear risk

Footnotes

Characteristics of excluded studies

Granatowicz 1976

Reason for exclusion

uncontrolled study of 1968 smokers, 71% taking cytisine, followed for 6m.

Jeong 2019

Reason for exclusion

non-randomized, open-label study of 35 smokers. Smoking cessation was not an outcome

Kempe 1967

Reason for exclusion

uncontrolled study of 30 male smokers given cytisine (Tabex) for 25 days and followed up for 6 m.

Maliszewski 1972

Reason for exclusion

uncontrolled study of 14 smokers on a 25-day course of cytisine (Tabex); followed up for 2 weeks

Metelitsa 1987

Reason for exclusion

uncontrolled study of 281 smokers, comparing anabasine, cytisine or a combination of both drugs, taken as bio soluble film on a

a paper or fabric patches, and followed up for 6 - 14m

Monova 2004

Reason for exclusion

RCT of 150 smokers, given cytisine (Tabex) for 25 days, and followed up for 60 days. Investigators did not instruct participants to stop smoking. Unclear whether double blind. Smoking cessation was verified by collected urinary cotinine but unclear if used

Ostrovskaia 1994

Reason for exclusion

uncontrolled study of 74 smokers, comparing anabasine, cytisine or combination therapy, in film patches (relates to Metelitsa 4-stage study). followed for 6 - 14m.

Paun 1968

Reason for exclusion

controlled trial of 366 smokers given cytisine (Tabex) vs placebo (239 smokers) but followed only for 8 wks. No validation of abstinence. Non-randomised, results of 2 sites using drug compared with 3rd site using placebo.

Ramotowski 2021

Reason for exclusion

non-randomised trial of 117 patients with stable CAD and acute coronary syndromes, who smoked > 10 cig/day, were included 30 days post PCI. Did not include a placebo control group.Cytisine intake was at the discretion of the patients. Patients were followed up only for 30 days. Small sample size, with a lost to follow-up, especially from the control group (29%).

Schmidt 1974

Reason for exclusion

non-randomised trial of 16 smoking cessation preparations, including cytisine (Tabex) in 200 smokers; participants allocated to treatment 'by chance' and followed up over 3m. All contacts by post. No validation of abstinence.

Zatonski 2006

Reason for exclusion

uncontrolled observational study of 342 smokers; 27.5% had reported they did not smoke at 6 months and 13.8% at 12 months, verified by exhaled CO

Footnotes

Characteristics of studies awaiting classification

Footnotes

Characteristics of ongoing studies

NCT04126135

Study name

Comparative Effectiveness of Cystine Versus Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) in the National Smoking Cessation Program of Mongolia: A Pragmatic Non-Inferiority Trial

Methods

A pragmatic, single blinded, randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial

Participants

Mongolian adult smokers referred to government-run addiction units

Interventions

Participants are randomized to 5 weeks of treatment (n=352) or usual care (n=352) and a 6-month follow-up. The treatment consists of a 25-day course of Cytisine tablets and behavioral counselling. Subjects will take a 25-day course of Cytisine tablets started during the 4 days before the quit date.

Usual care consists of 25 days of NRT and behavioral counselling

Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT). Subjects are asked to completely stop smoking on their quit day and use a daily NRT patch for 25 days.

Outcomes

Primary outcome: continuous abstinence (< 5 cigarettes smoked since quit date) at 1 month.

Secondary outcomes: include 7-day point prevalence abstinence rates and adverse events.

Starting date

January 27, 2022

Contact information

Pramil N Singh, DrPH: psingh@llu.edu

Anne Berit Petersen, PhD: abpetersen@llu.edu

Notes

Estimated Study Completion Date: March 2023

NCT04286295

Study name

Pilot RCT of Cytisine Compared to Combination Nicotine Replacement Therapy to Reduce Cigarette Consumption in Relapsed Smokers

Methods

RCT (Open label). Parallel Assignment

Participants

60 participants (30 men, 30 women) with CVD who have been treated for smoking cessation but have relapsed within 90 days of discharge

Interventions

Cytisine (Cravv™ , Zpharm, Waterloo) is a natural health product licensed by Health Canada to assist with smoking cessation; each oral capsule contains 1.5mg of cytisine. The dosing is as follows: 6 capsules daily for the first 3 days; 5 capsules daily for days 4-12; 4 capsules daily for days 13-16; 3 capsules daily for days 17-20; and 1-2 capsules daily for days 21-25.

Active Comparator: NRT

The Nicoderm® patch plus Nicorette® Lozenge will be provided to participants in the combination NRT group. Participants smoking less than 15 cigarettes per day will be provided with 14 mg patches while those smoking 15 or more cigarettes per day will receive 21 mg patches. P

Outcomes

Primary Outcome : feasibility of study [ Time Frame: Baseline to 25-day follow-up ]will be feasible to recruit 10 relapsed smokers with CHD per month to a study of cytisine vs. combination NRT
Secondary Outcome :a) Treatment completion [ Time Frame: Baseline to 25-day follow-up ]Participants will complete at least 70% of their prescribed treatment; b) Attrition [ Time Frame: Baseline to 25-day follow-up ]There will be less than 5% attrition over a 25-d treatment period
c) Cigarette consumption [ Time Frame: Baseline to 25-day follow-up ]Cigarette consumption will drop by 5 cigs/d more in the cytisine group compared to the combination NRT group by the end of the 25-d treatment period; d) Arterial Stiffness [ Time Frame: Baseline to 25-day follow-up ]Arterial stiffness, as measured by pulse wave velocity, will improve in smokers who are able to achieve complete abstinence (i.e. smoking zero cigarettes per day).

Starting date

February 14, 2022

Contact information

Contact: Ashley Baldwin: 613-696-7000 ext 14377 ABaldwin@ottawaheart.ca

Contact: Evyanne Wooding: 613-696-7000 ext 17596 ewooding@ottawaheart.ca

Notes

Estimated Study Completion Date: January 1, 2023

NCT04576949

Study name

A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Phase 3 Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Cytisinicline in Adult Smokers

Methods

RCT. Parallel Assignment

Participants

810 participants

Interventions

Placebo Arm: Placebo + Behavioral Support

one placebo tablet orally (PO) three times daily (TID) plus behavioral support for 12 weeks

Experimental Arm 1:Cytisinicline (Other Name: Cytisine) + Placebo + Behavioral Support

one cytisinicline 3 mg tablet PO TID plus behavioral support for 6 weeks followed by one placebo tablet PO TID plus behavioral support for 6 weeks

Experimental Arm 2: Cytisinicline + Behavioral Support

one cytisinicline tablet PO TID plus behavioral support for 12 weeks

Outcomes

Primary outcomes:

1. Proportion of participants with smoking abstinence during the last 4 weeks of 6 weeks cytisinicline treatment versus placebo treatment (Wk 3-6) [ Time Frame: Week 3-6 ]Smoking abstinence as verified by weekly expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurements ≤10 parts per million (ppm).

2. Proportion of participants with smoking abstinence during the last 4 weeks of 12 weeks cytisinicline treatment versus placebo treatment (Wk 9-12) [ Time Frame: Week 9-12 ]Smoking abstinence as verified by weekly expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurements ≤10 parts per million (ppm).

Secondary outcomes:

1. Proportion of participants with continuous smoking abstinence to Week 24 [ Time Frame: Week 24 ]Smoking abstinence as verified by monthly expired CO measurements ≤10 ppm.

2. Proportion of Participants Who are Relapse-Free at Week 24 [ Time Frame: Week 24 ]Relapse is defined as participant reported resuming smoking or an expired CO measure ≥ 10ppm

Starting date

October 13, 2020

Contact information

Principal investigator: Nancy Rigotti, MD. Mass General/Harvard Medical School

Notes

ORCA-2

NCT05102123

Study name

PeRiopEratiVE smokiNg cessaTion Trial

Methods

Randomized Factorial Assignment.

Participants

1720 participants

Interventions

Experimental Arm:Cytisine and Text Messaging

Administration of cytisine (pharmaceutical support) to patients on a set dose schedule with behavioral support through text messaging.

Placebo arm: Placebo and Text Messaging

Administration of placebo (inactive drug) to patients on a set dose schedule with behavioral support through text messaging.

Active Comparator: Cytisine and No Text Messaging

Administration of cytisine (pharmaceutical support) to patients on a set dose schedule with behavioral support according to standard care such as a phone number for a self-help line.

No Intervention: Placebo and No Text Messaging

Administration of placebo (inactive drug) to patients on a set dose schedule behavioral support according to standard care such as a phone number for a self-help line.

Outcomes

Primary outcome: Smoking Cessation [ Time Frame: 6 months ]

Complete abstinence ("not even a puff") beginning on the quit date and lasting until the assessment at 6 months post-randomization with biochemical verification for those who report abstinence, using exhaled breath carbon monoxide (cut-off <10 ppm) measured with a carbon monoxide (CO) monitor.

Secondary outcomes:

  1. 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 30 days
  2. 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at week 8
  3. Time to first lapse
  4. Time to first relapse
  5. Wound complications
  6. Infectious complications
  7. Respiratory complications
  8. Myocardial infarction
  9. Proximal venous thrombo-embolism
  10. Stroke
Starting date

April 1, 2022

Contact information

Emily Di Sante: 905-297-3479 / emily.disante@phri.ca

Jessica Vincent: 905-297-3479 ext 40635 / jessica.vincent@phri.ca

Notes

Estimated Primary Completion Date: October 1, 2024

NCT05206370

Study name

A Second Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Phase 3 Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Cytisinicline in Adult Smokers

Methods

RCT. Parallel Assignment

Participants

750 participants

Interventions

Placebo Arm: Placebo + Behavioral Support

one placebo tablet orally (PO) three times daily (TID) plus behavioral support for 12 weeks

1. Experimental Arm:Cytisinicline (Other Name:Cytisine) + Placebo + Behavioral Support

one cytisinicline 3 mg tablet PO TID plus behavioral support for 6 weeks followed by one placebo tablet PO TID plus behavioral support for 6 weeks

2.Experimental:Cytisinicline + Behavioral Support

one cytisinicline tablet PO TID plus behavioral support for 12 weeks

Outcomes

Primary outcomes:

1. Proportion of participants with smoking abstinence during the last 4 weeks of 6 weeks cytisinicline treatment versus placebo treatment (Wk 3-6) [ Time Frame: Week 3-6 ]Smoking abstinence as verified by weekly expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurements ≤10 parts per million (ppm).

2. Proportion of participants with smoking abstinence during the last 4 weeks of 12 weeks cytisinicline treatment versus placebo treatment (Wk 9-12) [ Time Frame: Week 9-12 ]Smoking abstinence as verified by weekly expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurements ≤10 parts per million (ppm).

Secondary outcomes:

1. Proportion of participants with continuous smoking abstinence to Week 24 [ Time Frame: Week 24 ]Smoking abstinence as verified by monthly expired CO measurements ≤10 ppm.

2. Proportion of Participants Who are Relapse-Free at Week 24 [ Time Frame: Week 24 ]Relapse is defined as participant reported resuming smoking or an expired CO measure ≥ 10ppm

Starting date

January 20, 2022

Contact information

Daniel Cain, Vice-President Clinical Research. dcain@achievelifesciences.com

Notes

ORCA-3

Oreskovic 2021

Study name

Varenicline Versus Cytisine for Smoking Cessation in the Primary Care Setting in Croatia and Slovenia - a Randomized Controlled Trial

Methods

RCT. Parallel Assignment

Participants

380 patients with interest in quitting smoking will be randomly assigned to use varenicline or cytisine to help quit smoking.

Interventions

190 patients will receive varenicline (Champix ®) for 12 weeks and regular phone calls with brief counselling

190 patients will receive cytisine (Tabex ®) for 25 days and regular phone calls with brief counselingOther Name: Champix

Outcomes

Primary outcomes:

Seven day abstinence from tobacco [Time Frame: 12-weeks following target quit date ].

Secondary outcomes:

  1. Seven day abstinence from tobacco country and practice
  2. Seven day abstinence from tobacco
  3. Seven day abstinence from tobacco
  4. Seven day abstinence from tobacco
  5. Continuous smoking cessation
  6. Medication adherence
  7. Side effects
Starting date

July 14, 2020

Contact information

Stjepan Oreskovic, PhD: sooreskov@gmail.com

Jeffrey M Ashburner, PhD: jasburner@mgh.harvard.edu

Notes

NCT04015414

Footnotes

Summary of findings tables

Additional tables

References to studies

Included studies

Courtney 2021

Courtney RJ, McRobbie H, Tutka P, Weaver NA, Petrie D, Mendelsohn CP, Shakeshaft A, Talukder S, Macdonald C, Thomas D, Kwan BCH, Walker N, Gartner C, Mattick RP, Paul C, Ferguson SG, Zwar NA, Richmond RL, Doran CM, Boland VC, Hall W, West R, Farrell M.. Effect of Cytisine vs Varenicline on Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association 2021;326(1):56-64. [DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.7621. ; Other: PMID: 34228066; PMCID: PMC8261608.]

Dogar 2020

Dogar O, Keding A, Gabe R et all. Cytisine for smoking cessation in patients with tuberculosis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Glob Health 2020;8(11):e1408-1417.

Levshin 2009

Levshin V.F., Slepchenko N.I. Radkevich N.V.. Randomized controlled trial of cytisiine for treatment of tobacco dependence. Vopr Narkol 2009;5:13-22.

Nides 2021

Nides M, Rigotti NA, Benowitz N, Clarke A, Jacobs C. A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2b Trial of Cytisinicline in Adult Smokers (The ORCA-1 Trial). Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2021;23(10):1656–1663.

Pastorino 2022

Pastorino U, Ladisa V, Trussardo S, Sabia F, Rolli L, Valsecchi C, Ledda RE, Milanese G, Suatoni P, Boeri M, Sozzi G, Marchianò A, Munarini E, Boffi R, Gallus S, Apolone G.. Cytisine Therapy Improved Smoking Cessation in the Randomized Screening and Multiple Intervention on Lung Epidemics Lung Cancer Screening Trial. J Thorac Oncol 2022 Jul 28;S1556-0864(22):00346-X. [DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2022.07.007. ; Other: Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35908731]

Phusahat 2022

Phusahat, P.; Dilokthornsakul, P.; Boonsawat, W.; Zaeoue, U.; Hansuri, N.; Tawinkan, N.; Theeranut, A.; Lertsinudom, S. Efficacy and Safety of Cytisine in Combination with a Community Pharmacists’ Counselling for Smoking Cessation in Thailand: A Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022;19:13358. [DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph192013358]

Scharfenberg 1971

Benndorf S, Scharfenberg G, Kempe G, Wendekamm R, Winkelvoss E.. Smoking cessation treatment with cytisin (Tabex®): half-yearly outcomes for former smokers abstinent at four weeks from beginning of treatment [Medikamentöse raucherentwöhnung mit cytisin (Tabex®): ergebnisse der halbjahresbefragung bei den vier wochen nach kurbeginn abstinenten ehemaligen rauchern]. Das Deutsche Gesundheitwesen 1970;24:774-6.

Tindle 2022

Tindle HA, Freiberg MS, Cheng DM, et al.. Effectiveness of Varenicline and Cytisine for Alcohol Use Reduction Among People With HIV and Substance Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial.. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5(8):e2225129. [DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.25129]

Vinnikov 2008

Vinnikov D, Brimkulov N, Burjubaeva A. A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of cytisine for smoking cessation in medium-dependent workers. Journal of Smoking Cessation 2008;3(1):57-62.

Walker 2014

Walker N, Howe C, Glover M, McRobbie H, Barnes J, Nosa V, et al. Cytisine versus nicotine for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;371(25):2353-62.

Walker 2021

Walker N, Smith B, Barnes J, et al. Cytisine versus varenicline for smoking cessation in New Zealand indigenous Māori: a randomized controlled tria. Addiction 2021;116(10):2847-2858.

West 2011

West R, Zatonski W, Cedzynska M, Lewandowska D, Pazik J, Aveyard PA, et al.. Placebo-controlled trial of cytisine for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine 2011;365:1193-200.

Excluded studies

Granatowicz 1976

Published data only (unpublished sought but not used)

* Granatowicz J. Smoking cessation through the use of cytisine and other therapy. World Smoking Health 1976 1976;1:8-11.

Jeong 2019

Jeong SH, Sheridan J, Bullen C, Newcombe D, Walker N, Tingle M. Ascending single dose pharmacokinetics of cytisine in healthy adult smokers.. Xenobiotica 2019 Nov;49(11):1332-1337.. [Other: doi: 10.1080/00498254.2018.1557760. Epub 2019 Jun 19. PMID: 30526213]

Kempe 1967

Kempe G. Observation about the Bulgarian medicine for smoking withdrawal Tabex, produced by Pharmachim-Sofia.. Savr Med 1967;18(4):355-6.

Maliszewski 1972

Maliszewski L, Straczynski A. Therapeutic use of Tabex. Wiadomoscie Lekarskie 1972;25(24):2207-10.

Metelitsa 1987

Metelitsa V. Pharmacological agents in controlling smoking. Biulleten Vsesoiuznogo Kardiologicheskogo Nuachnogo Tsentra AMN SSSR 1987;10(1):109-12.

Monova 2004

Monova A, Monova D, Petrov V. Peneva E, Todorova M, Petrova M.. Final report on double blind, placebo controlled, randomized clinical study for evaluation of eHicacy, safety and tolerability of Tabex in patients with chronic nicotinism (tabacism): TAB - SPH - 04014.. Sopharma plc unpublished report 2004.

Ostrovskaia 1994

Ostrovskaia TP. Results of clinical investigation of anti-nicotine drug patches. Meditsinskaia Tekhnika 1994;3:42-3..

Paun 1968

Paun D, Franze J.. Smoking cessation with cytisine 'Tabex' tablets [Raucherentwöhnung mit cytisinhaltigen "Tabex" tabletten [German]]. Sonderduck aus das deutsche Gesundheitwesen 1968;23(44):2088-91.

Ramotowski 2021

Ramotowski B, Budaj A. Is cytisine contraindicated in smoking patients with coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention? Kardiol Pol 2021;79(7-8):813-819. [DOI: 10.33963; Other: KP.a2021.0025. Epub 2021 Jun 1. PMID: 34060636]

Schmidt 1974

Schmidt FMunch. Medical support of nicotine withdrawal. Report on a double blind trial in over 5000 smoker [Medikamentose unterstutzung der raucherentwohnung: bericht uber versuche an uber 5000 rauchern im doppelblindversuch [German]]. Med Wachr 1974;116(11):557-64.

Zatonski 2006

Zatonski W, Cedzynska M, Tutka P, West R. An uncontrolled trial of cytisine (Tabex) for smoking cessation. Tobacco Control 2006;15(6):481-4.

Studies awaiting classification

Ongoing studies

NCT04126135

NCT04286295

NCT04576949

NCT05102123

NCT05206370

Oreskovic 2021

Other references

Additional references

Cahill 2016

Cahill K, Lindson-Hawley N, Thomas KH, Fanshawe TR, Lancaster T. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;5:CD006103.

Cochrane Handbook 2022

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors).. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. version 6.3 (updated February 2022).

Coe 2005

Coe J. W., Brooks P. R., Vetelino M. G., Wirtz M. C., Arnold E. P., Huang J.et al.. Varenicline: an α4β2 nicotinic receptor partial agonist for smoking cessation.. J Med Chem 2005;48:3474–7.

Crawford 2017

Crawford P, Cieslak D. Varenicline for Smoking Cessation. American Family Physician Sep 1, 2017;96(5). [Other: ]

ENFR 2018

Cuarta Encuesta Nacional de Factores de Riesgo. Principales resultados [Internet]. Buenos Aires: Secretaría de Gobierno de Salud.. 2018;20. [Other: isponible en: http://www.msal.gob.ar/images/stories/bes/graficos/0000001444cnt-2019-04_4ta-encuesta-nacional-factores-riesgo.pdf]

Etter 2006

Etter JF. Cytisine for smoking cessation: a literature review and a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2006 Aug;14-28. 166(15):1553-9. [DOI: doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.15.1553. PMID: 16908787]

Giulietti 2020

Giulietti F, Filipponi A, Rosettani G, Giordano P, Iacoacci C, Spannella F, Sarzani R. Pharmacological Approach to Smoking Cessation: An Updated Review for Daily Clinical Practice. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2020 Oct;27(5):349-362;5:349-362. [DOI: 10.1007/s40292-020-00396-9. ; Other: Epub 2020 Jun 23. PMID: 32578165; PMCID: PMC7309212]

Gomez-Coronado 2018

Gómez-Coronado N, Walker AJ, Berk M, Dodd S.. Current and Emerging Pharmacotherapies for Cessation of Tobacco Smoking.. Pharmacotherapy 2018 Feb;38(2):235-258. [DOI: 10.1002; Other: PMID: 29250815]

Hajek 2013

Hajek P, McRobbie H, Myers K. Efficacy of cytisine in helping smokers quit: systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax 2013;68:1037-42.

Hasin 2013

Hasin DS, O'Brien CP, Auriacombe M, Borges G, Bucholz K, Budney A, Compton WM, Crowley T, Ling W, Petry NM, Schuckit M, Grant BF. DSM-5 criteria for substance use disorders: recommendations and rationale. Am J Psychiatry 2013 Aug;170(8):834-51. [DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12060782. PMID: 23903334; PMCID: PMC3767415]

Laupacis 1988

Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment.. New England Journal of Medicine 1988;318:1728-33.

Lummis et al 2020

Lummis SCR, Price KL, Clarke A. Cytisine’s lower potency at 5-HT3 receptors may explain its lower incidence of náusea and vomiting than varenicline. Society for Research into Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT)-Europe 20th Annual Conference [virtual meeting] 17-19th September 2020.

Michie S 2011

Michie S, Hyder N, Walia A, West R.. Development of a taxonomy of behaviour change techniques used in individual behavioural support for smoking cessation. Addict Behav. 2011;36:315–9..

Moore 2015

Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O'Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258. [DOI: doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258; Other: PMID: 25791983; PMCID: PMC4366184.]

Ortun 2007

Ortún Vicente. Salud pública: «a la política rogando y con el mazo dando (en los servicios sanitarios)».. [Other: Gac Sanit [Internet]. 2007 Dic [citado 2021 Jul 03] ; 21( 6): 485-489. Disponible en: http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S021391112007000600009&lng=es]

Prochaska 2013

Prochaska, J. J., Das, S., & Benowitz, N. L.. Cytisine, the world’s oldest smoking cessation aid.. BMJ 2013, Aug 23;347:f5198–f5198. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f5198]

RCP 2018

Royal College of Physicians. Hiding in plain sight: treating tobacco dependency in the NHS.. London RCP 2018. [Other: ISBN 978-1-86016-731-7eISBN 978-1-86016-732-4]

Shang 2022

Shang X, Guo K, E. F, Deng X, Wang Y, Wang Z, Wu Y, Xu M, Yang C, Li X and Yang K. Pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network metaanalysis. Front. Pharmacol 2022;13:1012433. [DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1012433]

Tunis 2003

Tunis Sean R, Stryer Daniel B, Clancy Carolyn M. Increasing the Value of Clinical Research for Decision Making in Clinical and Health Policy. JAMA September 24, 2003;290(12).

Tutka 2019

Tutka P, Vinnikov D, Courtney RJ, Benowitz NL. Cytisine for nicotine addiction treatment: A review of pharmacology, therapeutics and an update of clinical trial evidence for smoking cessation. Addiction 2019;114:1951-69.

West 2005

West R, Hajek P, Stead L, Stapleton J. Outcome criteria in smoking cessation trials: proposal for a common standard. Addiction 2005;100:299-303.

WHO 2019

World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2019: Monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies.. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019;Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. [Other: ISBN 978-92-4-151620-4]

WHO 2021

Walker N, Siddiqi K, Dresler C, Bullen C, Leischow SJ, Tutka P, Castaldelli-Maia J, Singh PN, Etter JF, Brown J, Rigotti N. The selection and use of essential medicines: report of the WHO Expert Committee on Selection and Use of Essential Medicines, 2021 (including the 22nd WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the 8th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for Children). Geneva: World Health Organization. WHO Technical Report Series 2021;1035(Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.).

Other published versions of this review

Classification pending references

Data and analyses

1 Cytisine vs placebo

Outcome or SubgroupStudiesParticipantsStatistical MethodEffect Estimate
1.1 Smoking cessation rate at longest follow-up52134Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)3.75 [2.83, 4.97]
1.2 Smokiing cessation rate at least six months41938Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)3.80 [2.82, 5.11]
1.3 Subgroup: Income level of study population64606Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.45 [1.30, 1.61]
  1.3.1 Cytisine in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs)32801Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.13 [1.00, 1.27]
  1.3.2 Cytisine in upper/middle-high income countries (MHICs)31805Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)3.76 [2.80, 5.05]
1.4 Subgroup: Cytisine in association with behavioral therapy64606Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.45 [1.30, 1.61]
  1.4.1 Cytisine with behavioral therapy41394Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)3.81 [2.81, 5.17]
  1.4.2 Cytisine with minimal behavioral therapy (brief advice).23212Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.15 [1.02, 1.29]
 

2 Cytisine vs NRT

Outcome or SubgroupStudiesParticipantsStatistical MethodEffect Estimate
2.1 Smoking cessation rate at longest follow up21511Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.40 [1.13, 1.73]
 

3 Cytisine vs Varenicline

Outcome or SubgroupStudiesParticipantsStatistical MethodEffect Estimate
3.1 Smoking cessation rate at longest follow up32331Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.06 [0.85, 1.32]
 

4 Incidence of Adverse Events (AEs)

Outcome or SubgroupStudiesParticipantsStatistical MethodEffect Estimate
4.1 All AEs in Cytisine vs placebo trials85895Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.24 [1.11, 1.39]
4.2 All AEs in Cytisine vs Varenicline trials22131Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.92 [0.86, 0.99]
 

Figures

Figure 1

PRISMA study flow diagram.

Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Figure 3

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Figure 4 (Analysis 1.1)

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Cytisine vs placebo, outcome: 1.1 Smoking cessation rate at longest follow-up.

Figure 5 (Analysis 1.2)

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Cytisine vs placebo, outcome: 1.2 Smokiing cessation rate at least six months.

Figure 6 (Analysis 1.3)

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Cytisine vs placebo, outcome: 1.3 Subgroup: Income level of study population.

Figure 7 (Analysis 1.4)

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Cytisine vs placebo, outcome: 1.4 Subgroup: Cytisine in association with behavioral therapy.

Figure 8 (Analysis 2.1)

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Cytisine vs NRT, outcome: 2.1 Smoking cessation rate at longest follow up.

Figure 9 (Analysis 4.1)

Figure 10

GRADE evidence profile

Sources of support

Internal sources

External sources

Feedback

Appendices

1 Europe PMC search strategy

(("cytisine" OR "cytiton" OR "citizine" OR "cystisin" OR "tabex" OR "tsitizin") AND (smoking cessation OR "stopping smoking" OR "smoking given up" OR "quitting smoking" OR "smoking quitting" OR "smokings given up"))

2 LILACS search strategy

(tw: "cytisine" OR tw: "cytiton" OR tw: "citizine" OR tw: "cystisin" OR tw: "tabex" OR tw: "tsitizin" ) AND (tw: smoking cessation OR tw: "stopping smoking" OR tw:"smoking given up" OR tw: "quitting smoking" OR tw: "smoking quitting" OR "smokings given up")

3 Russian Electronic Library (e-library.rus)

"cytisine" OR "cytiton" OR "citizine" OR "cystisin" OR "tabex" OR "tsitizin" AND smoking cessation OR "stopping smoking" OR "smoking given up" OR "quitting smoking" OR "smoking quitting" OR "smokings given up"

4 Science Direct search strategy

("cytisine" OR "cytiton" OR "citizine" OR "cystisin" OR "tabex" OR "tsitizin") AND (smoking cessation OR "stopping smoking" OR "quitting smoking" )

5 Cochrane Library search strategy

("cytisine" OR "cytiton" OR "citizine" OR "cystisin" OR "tabex" OR "tsitizin") AND (smoking cessation OR "stopping smoking" OR "smoking given up" OR "quitting smoking" OR "smoking quitting" OR "smokings given up")

6 Clinical Trials search strategy

Condition: smoking cessation OR stopping smoking OR smoking given up OR quitting smoking OR smoking quitting OR smokings given up

Other terms: Cytisine OR cytiton OR citizine OR cystisin OR tabex OR tsitizin

7 Scientific Electronic Library Online search strategy

("cytisine" OR "cytiton" OR "citizine" OR "cystisin" OR "tabex" OR "tsitizin") AND (smoking cessation OR "stopping smoking" OR "smoking given up" OR "quitting smoking" OR "smoking quitting" OR "smokings given up"))

8 Model of the letter sent to the authors

Dear .........................................

Institution: .................................

Adress: .....................................

We are researchers at the National Poison Center of Argentine and are conducting a meta-analysis titled, Evaluation of the effectiveness of cytisine for the treatment of smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022296780, available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022296780).

We included your research.................................................................................... in our study but would like to perform additional analyses based on a more complete set of data, and need more information about your study.

We need data in order to complete the 2 X 2 table:

Cytisine

Events

Total

Events

Total

Smoking cessation at longest follow-up

(verified by self-report and / or biochemically at 6 months and 12 months)

Smoking cessation according to number of cigarettes (≤10 or >10 cigarettes / day)

Smoking cessation in association with cognitive behavioral therapy or other psychological therapy (Cytisine with or without psychological therapy for smoking cessation)

Incidence of adverse events

Any adverse events

Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

From your publication, we were able to describe only a few characteristics, but need your help with the raw numbers for the 2 X 2 tables above. We understand that we are requesting a lot of information and that you may not have time to complete the entire table. Even completing the 2 X 2 table for a few of the tests would be most helpful to us and we would be extremely grateful.

We very much appreciate any assistance you could give us with this matter. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this research.

Thank you. Sincerely,

Dr. Omar De Santi,

MD Research