Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41720599›Full record

Trial reportAddiction (Abingdon, England)2026

Personalizing smoking cessation pharmacotherapy using neuroaffective reactivity profiles: A randomized controlled trial.

Francesco Versace, Charles E Green, Yong Cui, Jason D Robinson, Menton M Deweese, Jennifer A Minnix, George Kypriotakis, Seokhun Kim, Maher Karam-Hage, Paul M Cinciripini

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Francesco VersaceDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2107-6683
Charles E GreenCenter for Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Yong CuiDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jason D RobinsonDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Menton M DeweeseCollaboration for STEM Education and Outreach, Department of Teaching and Learning, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Jennifer A MinnixDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
George KypriotakisDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Seokhun KimCenter for Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Maher Karam-HageDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5883-4436
Paul M CinciripiniDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2877-9928

Funding

TRANSLATIONAL AND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY COREP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI PETER W PISTERS · 1985 to 2026
$279.3M
Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas RP140262Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of TexasNational Cancer Institute to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterNCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P30CA016672State of Texas Permanent Health Funds awarded to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterThe University of Texas MD Anderson Lung Cancer Moonshot Program N/AUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Lung Cancer Moonshot Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsBy assessing neuroaffective response to motivationally relevant cues before a quit attempt, we have shown that smokers who attribute greater incentive salience to cigarette-related cues than non-cigarette-related rewards (Sign-trackers, ST) benefit more from varenicline compared with smokers with the opposite neuroaffective reactivity profile (Goal-trackers, GT). This proof-of-concept trial aimed to extend this work by testing whether the efficacy of varenicline relative to nicotine replacement treatment differs across the two neuroaffective reactivity profiles.

designA 2-group, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial with stratification on ST versus GT classification (based on baseline-assessed neuroaffective reactivity profiles) for adults seeking to quit smoking using varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

settingHospital-based outpatient clinic specializing in smoking cessation treatment, located in Houston, Texas, USA.

participants158 community volunteers (78 randomized to varenicline and 80 to NRT): 18-75 years of age, smoking 5 or more cigarettes/day and without severe comorbid psychiatric disorders, uncontrolled medical illnesses or contraindications for pharmacotherapy. INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATORS: Twelve weeks of varenicline or NRT combined with brief cessation counseling. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome: continuous smoking abstinence over the last 4 weeks of treatment. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: continuous abstinence at 3- and 6-month follow-ups.

findingsUsing a Bayesian approach, we estimated the probability that an interaction between treatment and neuroaffective profile exists. We pre-specified a probability above 80% as evidence for an interaction. Logistic regression indicated a 92.7% probability that an interaction between treatment and neuroaffective profile exists, exceeding the pre-specified threshold. Individuals with the ST profile responded better to varenicline than to NRT. At the end of treatment, the ST group showed a 35% Absolute Risk Difference (ARD) favoring varenicline over NRT (absolute cessation rates: 47% and 11%, respectively). In contrast, among individuals with the GT profile, the benefit of varenicline was smaller, with an ARD of 13% (absolute cessation rates of 29% for varenicline and 17% for NRT). The varenicline advantage for the ST group persisted at 3- and 6-month follow-ups.

conclusionsSmokers seeking to quit who attribute greater incentive salience to cigarette-related cues than non-cigarette-related rewards benefit more from varenicline than from nicotine replacement therapy. These findings support using neuroaffective biomarkers to inform personalized smoking cessation interventions.

Indexed as

MotivationPrecision MedicineSmoking CessationSmoking Cessation AgentsVareniclineAdolescentAdultAgedCuesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNicotine Replacement TherapyTobacco Use Cessation DevicesSmoking Cessation AgentsVareniclinecue reactivityevent‐related potentialsgoal trackingincentive saliencemotivational relevanceneuromarkerspersonalized medicinesign trackingsmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID41720599
PMCPMC13291096

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.