Objective To describe weight gain and its variation in smokers who achieve prolonged abstinence for up to 12 months and who quit without treatment or use drugs to assist cessation.Design Meta-analysis. Data sourcesWe searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and trials listed in Cochrane reviews of smoking cessation interventions (nicotine replacement therapy, nicotinic partial agonists, antidepressants, and exercise) for randomised trials of first line treatments (nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline) and exercise that reported weight change. We also searched CENTRAL for trials of interventions for weight gain after cessation.Review methods Trials were included if they recorded weight change from baseline to follow-up in abstinent smokers. We used a random effects inverse variance model to calculate the mean and 95% confidence intervals and the mean of the standard deviation for weight change from baseline to one, two, three, six, and 12 months after quitting. We explored subgroup differences using random effects meta-regression.Results 62 studies were included. In untreated quitters, mean weight gain was 1.12 kg (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.47), 2.26 kg (1.98 to 2.54), 2.85 kg (2.42 to 3.28), 4.23 kg (3.69 to 4.77), and 4.67 kg (3.96 to 5.38) at one, two, three, six, and 12 months after quitting, respectively. Using the means and weighted standard deviations, we calculated that at 12 months after cessation, 16%, 37%, 34%, and 13% of untreated quitters lost weight, and gained less than 5 kg, gained 5-10 kg, and gained more than 10 kg, respectively. Estimates of weight gain were similar for people using different pharmacotherapies to support cessation. Estimates were also similar between people especially concerned about weight gain and those not concerned. ConclusionSmoking cessation is associated with a mean increase of 4-5 kg in body weight after 12 months of abstinence, and most weight gain occurs within three months of quitting. Variation in weight change is large, with about 16% of quitters losing weight and 13% gaining more than 10 kg.

BackgroundDespite its success with compliant or supervised patients, disulfiram has been a controversial medication in the treatment of alcoholism. Often, study designs did not recognize a pivotal factor in disulfiram research, the importance of an open-label design. Our objectives are: (1) to analyze the efficacy and safety of disulfiram in RCTs in supporting abstinence and (2) to compare blind versus open-label studies, hypothesizing that blinded studies would show no difference between disulfiram and control groups because the threat would be evenly spread across all groups.Methods and FindingsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register for RCTs on disulfiram use with alcoholics in comparison to any alcoholic control group. The primary outcome was defined by the authors of each trial. Additional analyses included: blind vs. open-label, with or without supervision, cocaine study or not, and type of control. Overall, the 22 included studies showed a higher success rate of disulfiram compared to controls Hedges'g = .58 (95%CI = .35–.82). When comparing blind and open-label RCTs, only open-label trials showed a significant superiority over controls g = .70 (95%CI = .46–.93). RCTs with blind designs showed no efficacy of disulfiram compared to controls. Disulfiram was also more effective than the control condition when compared to naltrexone g = .77, 95%CI = .52–1.02, to acamprosate g = .76, 95%CI = .04–1.48, and to the no disulfiram groups g = .43, 95%CI = .17–.69. Limits include: (1) a population of 89% male subjects and (2) a high but unavoidable heterogeneity of the studies with a substantial I-square in most subgroups of studies.ConclusionsBlinded studies were incapable of distinguishing a difference between treatment groups and thus are incompatible with disulfiram research. Based on results with open-label studies, disulfiram is a safe and efficacious treatment compared to other abstinence supportive pharmacological treatments or to no disulfiram in supervised studies for problems of alcohol abuse or dependence.

In this large cohort of IBD patients, risk factors for anxiety and depression were severe and active disease and socioeconomic deprivation. Psychological interventions would be useful when these factors are identified.