Efficacy, Safety, and Economic Impact of Cytisinicline Maintenance Therapy in Patients Who Are Candidates for Smoking Cessation: Protocol for a Phase IV, Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Controlled, Parallel Clinical Trial (CITISILONG Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytisinicline has proven to be an effective, efficient, and safe molecule in smoking cessation. However, the established 25-day regimen could be insufficient in a high percentage of smokers, so it is necessary to study maintained therapies of this drug. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the efficacy of the cytisinicline regimen used in routine clinical practice versus 2 maintained regimens of 50 and 75 days, respectively. In addition, the safety and economic impact of each regime will be determined. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, open-label, controlled, parallel, phase IV clinical trial of 402 smoker patients prepared to quit smoking. The study was conducted in 10 hospitals in Spain. A control group is compared to 2 intervention groups in which the duration of the drug is increased without increasing its dose, administering half and all, respectively, of an additional marketed container that includes 100 tablets. Thus, participants will be randomized to three groups in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive cytisinicline: (1) a control group treated with cytisinicline according to the usual clinical guidelines and product information (25 days); (2) a group with a 50-day cytisinicline regimen (an additional 25 days at a dose of 1.5 mg every 12 hours), seeking to increase its efficacy while minimally impacting adherence; and (3) a group with a 75-day regimen (an additional 50 days at a dose of 1.5 mg every 12 hours), attempting to increase its efficacy, although the longer duration of the drug may threaten adherence. Efficacy in the 3 arms will be analyzed through sustained abstinence at 6 and 12 months, point abstinence rate assessed every 7 days, and abstinence rate from Day 25 to Day 50 and from Day 25 to Day 75 in the 3 study arms. (1) The variation in withdrawal and craving symptoms in the 3 groups, (2) safety through the percentage of adverse events in the 3 treatment arms, and (3) economic impact by evaluating the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios of the 2 prolonged regimens versus the usual clinical cytisinicline regimen. To calculate the differences between the 3 groups for each outcome variable, a univariate analysis will be performed. Statistically significant variables will be included in a multivariate model. RESULTS: Recruitment for the trial and patient enrollment were completed in November 2026. Follow-up of all participants will extend to December 2027. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this study evaluates the optimization of cytisinicline in daily clinical practice, increasing the benefits of its pharmaceutical properties without affecting patient safety. All of this will improve the effectiveness of smoking cessation by reducing the number of smokers, which implies lower morbidity and mortality and lower costs associated with smoking. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Clinical Trials Register 2024-518936-36-00; https://euclinicaltrials.eu/ctis-public/view/2024-518936-36-00. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/76815.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".