Safety and Efficacy of Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Alcohol-Dependent Smokers in Concurrent Treatment for Alcohol Use Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking prevalence among those with alcohol dependence is much higher than the general population. Despite this, cessation treatment in those with concurrent alcohol dependence is seldom undertaken. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot study, whereby patients enrolled at an addiction treatment facility in downtown Toronto, Canada, were recruited and assigned to placebo or varenicline treatment for 12 weeks. We hypothesized that varenicline would be a safe and efficacious treatment for tobacco dependence in this population. METHODS: Daily dependent smokers in treatment for alcohol dependence and interested in participating in the study were first screened over the phone and then assessed in-person. If eligible, they were randomly assigned to placebo or varenicline in a double-blind fashion. They attended weekly appointments for smoking cessation counseling and completed daily diaries for the full 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-one subjects were randomized to either varenicline (n = 16) or placebo treatment (n = 15). Participants were predominantly male (73.3%) with a mean age of 44.6 (23-66). Only one subject in the placebo group was quit by end of treatment (7-day point prevalence abstinence), compared with 7 in the varenicline group (χ(1) = 5.56, P = 0.037). Both groups had a significant decline in cigarettes per day (CPD) by end of treatment (varenicline = 22.1 ± 13.3 to 2.0 ± 3.0 CPD, t(10) = 4.45, P = 0.001; placebo: 14.9 ± 4.4 to 5.3 ± 6.3 CPD, t(13) = 3.61, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this pilot study indicate that varenicline is a safe and effective treatment for tobacco dependence in a sample of alcohol-dependent smokers undergoing concurrent treatment for alcohol use disorder.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".