The evidence from trials in adults suggests that interactive and tailored Internet-based interventions with or without additional behavioural support are moderately more effective than non-active controls at six months or longer, but there was no evidence that these interventions were better than other active smoking treatments. However some of the studies were at high risk of bias, and there was evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity. Treatment effectiveness in younger people is unknown.

Background.Many studies have explored associations between depression and facial emotion recognition (ER). However, these studies have used various paradigms and multiple stimulus sets, rendering comparisons difficult. Few studies have attempted to determine the magnitude of any effect and whether studies are properly powered to detect it. We conducted a meta-analysis to synthesize the findings across studies on ER in depressed individuals compared to controls.Method.Studies of ER that included depressed and control samples and published before June 2013 were identified in PubMed and Web of Science. Studies using schematic faces, neuroimaging studies and drug treatment studies were excluded.Results.Meta-analysis of k = 22 independent samples indicated impaired recognition of emotion [k = 22, g = −0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.25 to −0.07, p < 0.001]. Critically, this was observed for anger, disgust, fear, happiness and surprise (k's = 7–22, g's = −0.42 to −0.17, p's < 0.08), but not sadness (k = 21, g = −0.09, 95% CI −0.23 to +0.06, p = 0.23). Study-level characteristics did not appear to be associated with the observed effect. Power analysis indicated that a sample of approximately 615 cases and 615 controls would be required to detect this association with 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05.Conclusions.These findings suggest that the ER impairment reported in the depression literature exists across all basic emotions except sadness. The effect size, however, is small, and previous studies have been underpowered.

High trait anxiety has been associated with detriments in emotional face processing. By contrast, relatively little is known about the effects of state anxiety on emotional face processing. We investigated the effects of state anxiety on recognition of emotional expressions (anger, sadness, surprise, disgust, fear and happiness) experimentally, using the 7.5% carbon dioxide (CO2) model to induce state anxiety, and in a large observational study. The experimental studies indicated reduced global (rather than emotion-specific) emotion recognition accuracy and increased interpretation bias (a tendency to perceive anger over happiness) when state anxiety was heightened. The observational study confirmed that higher state anxiety is associated with poorer emotion recognition, and indicated that negative effects of trait anxiety are negated when controlling for state anxiety, suggesting a mediating effect of state anxiety. These findings may have implications for anxiety disorders, which are characterized by increased frequency, intensity or duration of state anxious episodes.

Many cognitive bias modification (CBM) tasks use facial expressions of emotion as stimuli. Some tasks use unique facial stimuli, while others use composite stimuli, given evidence that emotion is encoded prototypically. However, CBM using composite stimuli may be identity- or emotion-specific, and may not generalise to other stimuli. We investigated the generalisability of effects using composite faces in two experiments. Healthy adults in each study were randomised to one of four training conditions: two stimulus-congruent conditions, where same faces were used during all phases of the task, and two stimulus-incongruent conditions, where faces of the opposite sex (Experiment 1) or faces depicting another emotion (Experiment 2) were used after the modification phase. Our results suggested that training effects generalised across identities. However, our results indicated only partial generalisation across emotions. These findings suggest effects obtained using composite stimuli may extend beyond the stimuli used in the task but remain emotion-specific.

Background Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes. Objectives To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes. Design Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results. Setting Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes. Participants Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes. Interventions Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies. Main outcome measures Effectiveness – continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety – serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events. Data sources Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019. Review methods Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model. Results Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard. Limitations Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified. Conclusions Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK. Future work Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background There is demand for new, effective and scalable treatments for depression, and development of new forms of cognitive bias modification (CBM) of negative emotional processing biases has been suggested as possible interventions to meet this need. Methods We report two double blind RCTs, in which volunteers with high levels of depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory ii (BDI-ii) > 14) completed a brief course of emotion recognition training (a novel form of CBM using faces) or sham training. In Study 1 (N = 36), participants completed a post-training emotion recognition task whilst undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate neural correlates of CBM. In Study 2 (N = 190), measures of mood were assessed post-training, and at 2-week and 6-week follow-up. Results In both studies, CBM resulted in an initial change in emotion recognition bias, which (in Study 2) persisted for 6 weeks after the end of training. In Study 1, CBM resulted in increases neural activation to happy faces, with this effect driven by an increase in neural activity in the medial prefrontal cortex and bilateral amygdala. In Study 2, CBM did not lead to a reduction in depressive symptoms on the BDI-ii, or on related measures of mood, motivation and persistence, or depressive interpretation bias at either 2 or 6-week follow-ups. Conclusions CBM of emotion recognition has effects on neural activity that are similar in some respects to those induced by Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) administration (Study 1), but we find no evidence that this had any later effect on self-reported mood in an analogue sample of non-clinical volunteers with low mood (Study 2).

Aim To determine how varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and electronic cigarettes compare with respect to their clinical effectiveness and safety. Method Systematic reviews and Bayesian network meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials, in any setting, of varenicline, bupropion, NRT and e‐cigarettes (in high, standard and low doses, alone or in combination) in adult smokers and smokeless tobacco users with follow‐up duration of 24 weeks or greater (effectiveness) or any duration (safety). Nine databases were searched until 19 February 2019. Primary outcomes were sustained tobacco abstinence and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and treatment rankings and conducted meta‐regression to explore covariates. Results We identified 363 trials for effectiveness and 355 for safety. Most monotherapies and combination therapies were more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence; the most effective of these, estimated with some imprecision, were varenicline standard [OR = 2.83, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 2.34–3.39] and varenicline standard + NRT standard (OR = 5.75, 95% CrI = 2.27–14.88). Estimates were higher in smokers receiving counselling than in those without and in studies with higher baseline nicotine dependence scores than in those with lower scores. Varenicline standard + NRT standard showed a high probability of being ranked best or second‐best. For safety, only bupropion at standard dose increased the odds of experiencing SAEs compared with placebo (OR = 1.27, 95% CrI = 1.04–1.58), and we found no evidence of effect modification. Conclusions Most tobacco cessation monotherapies and combination therapies are more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence, with varenicline appearing to be most effective based on current evidence. There does not appear to be strong evidence of associations between most tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and adverse events; however, the data are limited and there is a need for improved reporting of safety data.

Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom. Methods: An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information. Results: When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most costeffective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose 1 bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose 1 NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose 1 NRT standard-dose. Conclusion: Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.