| Title |
Varenicline for smoking cessation: a narrative review of efficacy, adverse effects, use in at-risk populations, and adherence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s83469 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael V Burke, J Taylor Hays, Jon O Ebbert |
| Abstract |
Treating tobacco dependence is the most effective way to reduce tobacco-related death and disability. Counseling and pharmacotherapy have been shown to increase tobacco abstinence rates among smokers. Varenicline is the most effective monotherapy treatment for tobacco dependence; however, it is prescribed less often than indicated, and adherence is less than optimal. We conducted a literature review of the development, efficacy, safety, contraindications, and adverse effects of varenicline; including reviewing data regarding combination therapy, extended duration, and patient adherence. Varenicline was developed to work specifically on the factors that underlie nicotine addiction. Phase II and Phase III trials established dosing, safety profiles, and efficacy. Postmarketing research raised concerns about neuropsychiatric and cardiac effects, resulting in warning labels being added and modified to encourage discussions with patients weighing the risks and benefits. While more research is needed, evidence is strong that varenicline is safe and effective in treating tobacco dependence among people who are at higher risk for neuropsychiatric symptoms and cardiovascular disease. The effectiveness of varenicline can be improved by taking it in combination with other medications, enhancing patient adherence and extending the duration of treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 33 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 30% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 11% |
| Psychology | 9 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 13% |
| Unknown | 36 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2022.
All research outputs
#591,443
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#27
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,861
of 314,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#1
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.