31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
      Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group
      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

          Related collections

          Most cited references315

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation.

          The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is temporarily to replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. The aims of this review were:To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers with 'nicotine' or 'NRT' in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2007. Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow up of less than six months. We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We identified 132 trials; 111 with over 40,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50 to 1.66). The pooled RR for each type were 1.43 (95% CI: 1.33 to 1.53, 53 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.66 (95% CI: 1.53 to 1.81, 41 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.90 (95% CI: 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; 2.00 (95% CI: 1.63 to 2.45, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; and 2.02 (95% CI: 1.49 to 3.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy. In this study quit rates with nicotine patch were lower than with the antidepressant bupropion. All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50-70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of smoking and smoking cessation on lipids and lipoproteins: outcomes from a randomized clinical trial.

            the effects of smoking and smoking cessation on lipoproteins have not been studied in a large contemporary group of smokers. This study was designed to determine the effects of smoking cessation on lipoproteins. this was a 1-year, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the effects of 5 smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. Fasting nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy lipoprotein profiles were obtained before and 1 year after the target smoking cessation date. The effects of smoking cessation and predictors of changes in lipoproteins after 1 year were identified by multivariable regression. the 1,504 current smokers were (mean [SD]) 45.4 (11.3) years old and smoked 21.4 (8.9) cigarettes per day at baseline. Of the 923 adult smokers who returned at 1 year, 334 (36.2%) had quit smoking. Despite gaining more weight (4.6 kg [5.7] vs 0.7 kg [5.1], P < .001], abstainers had increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (2.4 [8.3] vs 0.1 [8.8] mg/dL, P < .001), total HDL (1.0 [4.6] vs -0.3 micromol/L [5.0], P < .001), and large HDL (0.6 [2.2] vs 0.1 [2.1] micromol/L, P = .003) particles compared with continuing smokers. Significant changes in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and particles were not observed. After adjustment, abstinence from smoking (P < .001) was independently associated with increases in HDL-C and total HDL particles. These effects were stronger in women. despite weight gain, smoking cessation improved HDL-C, total HDL, and large HDL particles, especially in women. Smoking cessation did not affect LDL or LDL size. Increases in HDL may mediate part of the reduced cardiovascular disease risk observed after smoking cessation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Tobacco cessation interventions for young people

              Most tobacco control programmes for adolescents are based around prevention of uptake, but teenage smoking is still common. It is unclear if interventions that are effective for adults can also help adolescents to quit. This is the update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006. To evaluate the effectiveness of strategies that help young people to stop smoking tobacco. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register in June 2017. This includes reports for trials identified in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsyclNFO. We included individually and cluster‐randomized controlled trials recruiting young people, aged under 20 years, who were regular tobacco smokers. We included any interventions for smoking cessation; these could include pharmacotherapy, psycho‐social interventions and complex programmes targeting families, schools or communities. We excluded programmes primarily aimed at prevention of uptake. The primary outcome was smoking status after at least six months' follow‐up among those who smoked at baseline. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of candidate trials and extracted data. We evaluated included studies for risk of bias using standard Cochrane methodology and grouped them by intervention type and by the theoretical basis of the intervention. Where meta‐analysis was appropriate, we estimated pooled risk ratios using a Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect method, based on the quit rates at six months' follow‐up. Forty‐one trials involving more than 13,000 young people met our inclusion criteria (26 individually randomized controlled trials and 15 cluster‐randomized trials). We judged the majority of studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Interventions were varied, with the majority adopting forms of individual or group counselling, with or without additional self‐help materials to form complex interventions. Eight studies used primarily computer or messaging interventions, and four small studies used pharmacological interventions (nicotine patch or gum, or bupropion). There was evidence of an intervention effect for group counselling (9 studies, risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.77), but not for individual counselling (7 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.39), mixed delivery methods (8 studies, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66) or the computer or messaging interventions (pooled RRs between 0.79 and 1.18, 9 studies in total). There was no clear evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions, although confidence intervals were wide (nicotine replacement therapy 3 studies, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.58; bupropion 1 study RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.02). No subgroup precluded the possibility of a clinically important effect. Studies of pharmacotherapies reported some adverse events considered related to study treatment, though most were mild, whereas no adverse events were reported in studies of behavioural interventions. Our certainty in the findings for all comparisons is low or very low, mainly because of the clinical heterogeneity of the interventions, imprecision in the effect size estimates, and issues with risk of bias. There is limited evidence that either behavioural support or smoking cessation medication increases the proportion of young people that stop smoking in the long‐term. Findings are most promising for group‐based behavioural interventions, but evidence remains limited for all intervention types. There continues to be a need for well‐designed, adequately powered, randomized controlled trials of interventions for this population of smokers. Background Worldwide, between 80,000 and 100,000 young people start smoking every day. Many adolescent tobacco programmes focus on preventing teenagers from starting to smoke, but some programmes have been aimed at helping those teenagers who are already smoking to quit. We set out to investigate whether these programmes can help young people quit smoking for six months or longer. Searches are up to date as of June 2017. Study characteristics We identified 41 studies (around 13,000 participants) that researched ways of helping teenagers to quit smoking. These studies were of mixed quality and looked at various methods for stopping smoking, including one‐to‐one counselling, counselling as part of a group, methods using computers or text messaging, or a combination of these. Four studies used drug treatments such as nicotine patches. Most studies recruited participants from schools, and 29 of the studies were carried out in North America. Key results Although some programmes showed promise, especially those that used group counselling and those that combined a variety of approaches, there was no strong evidence that any particular method was effective in helping young people to stop smoking. Trials differed in how they measured whether a person had quit smoking, and many trials did not have enough participants for us to be confident about wider application of the results. Medications such as nicotine replacement and bupropion were not shown to be successful with adolescents, and some adverse events were reported, although these events were generally mild and findings were based on studies with small numbers of participants. Based on these findings we cannot currently identify a programme for helping adolescents to stop smoking that is more successful than trying to stop unaided. Quality of the evidence The quality of evidence was low or very low for all of the outcomes in this review. This is because of issues with the quality of some of the studies, the small number of studies and participants for some outcomes, and the differences between the studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                May 31 2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Oxford; Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; Radcliffe Observatory Quarter Woodstock Road Oxford UK OX2 6GG
                [2 ]Cochrane UK; Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Oxford UK OX2 7LG
                [3 ]University of Oxford; Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School; Oxford UK
                [4 ]University of Auckland; National Institute for Health Innovation; Private Bag 92019 Auckland Mail Centre Auckland New Zealand 1142
                [5 ]King’s College London; GKT School of Medical Education; London UK
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub5
                6353172
                29852054
                6d366fbe-29f7-4c90-a31a-a49cd7497ba6
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article