4.5 Editorial Material

Are Pharmacotherapies Ineffective in Opioid-Dependent Smokers? Reflections on the Scientific Literature and Future Directions

期刊

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 955-959

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntv030

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 DA019550, T32 DA007242, P50 DA036114, P20 GM103644]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [P20GM103644] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [P50DA036114] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While rates of smoking in the general population have decreased in recent years, dramatic disparities remain among disadvantaged subgroups of smokers, particularly those with concurrent substance abuse. Prevalence rates of smoking among opioid-dependent patients, for example, are fourfold those of the general population. While pharmacotherapies are recommended as a first-line treatment for nicotine dependence, the few studies that have investigated their effectiveness in this population have shown dramatically poorer outcomes compared to the general population. Indeed, these findings have led some researchers to suggest that pharmacotherapies may simply be ineffective in opioid-maintained smokers. In this commentary, we briefly summarize the extant literature on pharmacotherapies in opioid-maintained smokers and contribute new data investigating the contribution of bupropion on smoking outcomes in 81 methadone-and buprenorphine-maintained participants from two randomized trials of financial incentives for smoking cessation. We also discuss several important parameters (ie, timing of the quit attempt, medication adherence, nicotine withdrawal) that may be leveraged to strengthen smoking pharmacotherapy outcomes in opioid-dependent patients. Taken together, an improved understanding of these issues will aid efforts to reduce tobacco-related health disparities in this group of challenging smokers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据