Dataset Information

Does nicotine replacement therapy cause cancer? Evidence from the Lung Health Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Recent genetic evidence has implicated nicotine as a possible cause of cancer, suggesting the need to examine the potential contributions of nicotine itself to cancer versus the confounding effects of addiction and thus exposures to known carcinogens. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between nicotine replacement therapy, smoking, and cancer outcomes.

Methods

The Lung Health Study enrolled 5,887 participants in a randomized trial to prevent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The present study used surveillance data on 3,320 intervention participants who enrolled in the Lung Health Study for 5 years and who were then followed by the Lung Cancer Substudy for 7.5 years. Nicotine replacement therapy use and smoking exposure were recorded during the 5-year Lung Health Study trial. Surveillance for lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancer (including oral cancers), and all cancers began following the Lung Health Study.

Results

Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regressions assessed the hazards of nicotine replacement therapy and smoking for each diagnosis group. In the adjusted models for lung cancer, nicotine replacement therapy alone was not a significant predictor (p = .57), while smoking during the Lung Health Study was a significant predictor (p = .03). When nicotine replacement therapy and smoking were entered in the same model, nicotine replacement therapy remained not significant (p = .25) and smoking was clearly significant (p = .02). Nicotine replacement therapy and smoking were not significant predictors of cancer in the models for gastrointestinal cancer or all cancers.

Discussion

Although the surveillance time was short, smoking predicted cancer in this analysis and nicotine replacement therapy did not.

SUBMITTER: Murray RP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2725009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Considerable public health efforts are ongoing Canada-wide to reduce the prevalence of smoking in the general population. From 1985 to 2005, smoking rates among adults decreased from 35% to 19%, however, since that time, the prevalence has plateaued at around 18-19%. To continue to reduce the number of smokers at the population level, one option has been to translate interventions that have demonstrated clinical efficacy into population level initiatives. Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a considerable clinical research base demonstrating its efficacy and safety and thus public health initiatives in Canada and other countries are distributing NRT widely through the mail. However, one important question remains unanswered--do smoking cessation programs that involve mailed distribution of free NRT work? To answer this question, a randomized controlled trial is required.A single blinded, panel survey design with random assignment to an experimental and a control condition will be used in this study. A two-stage recruitment process will be employed, in the context of a general population survey with two follow-ups (8 weeks and 6 months). Random digit dialing of Canadian home telephone numbers will identify households with adult smokers (aged 18+ years) who are willing to take part in a smoking study that involves three interviews, with saliva collection for 3-HC/cotinine ratio measurement at baseline and saliva cotinine verification at 8-week and 6-month follow-ups (N = 3,000). Eligible subjects interested in free NRT will be determined at baseline (N = 1,000) and subsequently randomized into experimental and control conditions to receive versus not receive nicotine patches. The primary hypothesis is that subjects who receive nicotine patches will display significantly higher quit rates (as assessed by 30 day point prevalence of abstinence from tobacco) at 6-month follow-up as compared to subjects who do not receive nicotine patches at baseline.The findings from the proposed trial are timely and highly relevant as mailed distribution of NRT require considerable resources and there are limited public health dollars available to combat this substantial health concern. In addition, findings from this randomized controlled trial will inform the development of models to engage smokers to quit, incorporating proactive recruitment and the offer of evidence based treatment.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01429129.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious research suggests exposure to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).MethodsUsing data from the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink, this study aimed to evaluate CVD events and survival among individuals who attempted smoking cessation with the support of NRT compared with those aided by smoking cessation advice only. We studied CVD outcomes over 4 and 52 weeks in 50,214 smokers attempting to quit - 33,476 supported by smoking cessation advice and 16,738 with the support of NRT prescribed by their primary care physician. Patients were matched (2 smoking cessation advice patients:1 NRT patient) on demographic and clinical characteristics during a baseline year preceding their quit attempt. Cox proportional hazard regression, conditional negative binomial regression model, and conditional logistic regression were used to analyze data.ResultsMean (standard deviation) population age was 47 (11.2) years; 51% were females. Time to first diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (IHD) among NRT and smoking cessation advice patients was similar within the first 4 weeks, but shorter for NRT patients over 52 weeks (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.77). A similar trend was observed for cerebrovascular disease (HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.08-2.19). NRT patients with a prior diagnosis of IHD or cerebrovascular disease had a higher rate of primary or secondary care consultations for IHD or cerebrovascular disease by 52 weeks (rate ratio: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14-1.99). Patients prescribed NRT had a shorter survival time over 52 weeks, compared with those receiving advice only (HR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09-1.76).ConclusionOur findings suggest that treatment with NRT over 4 weeks does not appear to have an impact on cardiovascular risks. However, a longer follow-up period of 52 weeks resulted in an increase in cardiovascular events for patients prescribed NRT, compared with those receiving smoking cessation advice only.

Project description:Given the rapid increase in the popularity of e-cigarettes and the paucity of associated longitudinal health-related data, the need to assess the potential risks of long-term use is essential.To compare exposure to nicotine, tobacco-related carcinogens, and toxins among smokers of combustible cigarettes only, former smokers with long-term e-cigarette use only, former smokers with long-term nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use only, long-term dual users of both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and long-term users of both combustible cigarettes and NRT.Cross-sectional study.United Kingdom.The following 5 groups were purposively recruited: combustible cigarette-only users, former smokers with long-term (?6 months) e-cigarette-only or NRT-only use, and long-term dual combustible cigarette-e-cigarette or combustible cigarette-NRT users (n = 36 to 37 per group; total n = 181).Sociodemographic and smoking characteristics were assessed. Participants provided urine and saliva samples and were analyzed for biomarkers of nicotine, tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNAs), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).After confounders were controlled for, no clear between-group differences in salivary or urinary biomarkers of nicotine intake were found. The e-cigarette-only and NRT-only users had significantly lower metabolite levels for TSNAs (including the carcinogenic metabolite 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol [NNAL]) and VOCs (including metabolites of the toxins acrolein; acrylamide; acrylonitrile; 1,3-butadiene; and ethylene oxide) than combustible cigarette-only, dual combustible cigarette-e-cigarette, or dual combustible cigarette-NRT users. The e-cigarette-only users had significantly lower NNAL levels than all other groups. Combustible cigarette-only, dual combustible cigarette-NRT, and dual combustible cigarette-e-cigarette users had largely similar levels of TSNA and VOC metabolites.Cross-sectional design with self-selected sample.Former smokers with long-term e-cigarette-only or NRT-only use may obtain roughly similar levels of nicotine compared with smokers of combustible cigarettes only, but results varied. Long-term NRT-only and e-cigarette-only use, but not dual use of NRTs or e-cigarettes with combustible cigarettes, is associated with substantially reduced levels of measured carcinogens and toxins relative to smoking only combustible cigarettes.Cancer Research UK.

Project description:The US Food and Drug Administration adopted labeling for nicotine patches to allow use beyond the standard 8 weeks. This decision was based in part on data showing increased efficacy for 24 weeks of treatment. Few studies have examined whether the use of nicotine patches beyond 24 weeks provides additional therapeutic benefit.To compare 8 (standard), 24 (extended), and 52 (maintenance) weeks of nicotine patch treatment for promoting tobacco abstinence.We recruited 525 treatment-seeking smokers for a randomized clinical trial conducted from June 22, 2009, through April 15, 2014, through 2 universities.Smokers received 12 smoking cessation behavioral counseling sessions and were randomized to 8, 24, or 52 weeks of nicotine patch treatment.The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence abstinence, confirmed with breath levels of carbon monoxide at 6 and 12 months (intention to treat).At 24 weeks, 21.7% of participants in the standard treatment arm were abstinent, compared with 27.2% of participants in the extended and maintenance treatment arms (?(2)(1)?= 1.98; P =?.17). In a multivariate model controlled for covariates, participants in the extended and maintenance treatment arms reported significantly greater abstinence rates at 24 weeks compared with participants in the standard treatment arm (odds ratio [OR], 1.70 [95% CI, 1.03-2.81]; P =?.04), had a longer duration of abstinence until relapse (? = 21.30 [95% CI, 10.30-32.25]; P <?.001), reported smoking fewer cigarettes per day if not abstinent (mean [SD], 5.8 [5.3] vs 6.4 [5.1] cigarettes per day; ? = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.06-0.82]; P =?.02), and reported more abstinent days (mean [SD], 80.5 [38.1] vs 68.2 [43.7] days; OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.06-2.26]; P =?.02). At 52 weeks, participants in the maintenance treatment arm did not report significantly greater abstinence rates compared with participants in the standard and extended treatment arms (20.3% vs 23.8%; OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.69-1.98]; P =?.57). Similarly, we found no difference in week 52 abstinence rates between participants in the extended and standard treatment arms (26.0% vs 21.7%; OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 0.72-2.45]; P =?.36). Treatment duration was not associated with any adverse effects or adherence to the counseling regimen, but participants in the maintenance treatment arm reported lower adherence to the nicotine patch regimen compared with those in the standard and extended treatment arms (mean [SD], 3.94 [2.5], 4.61 [2.0], and 4.7 [2.4] patches/wk, respectively; F2,522 = 6.03; P =?.003).The findings support the safety of long-term use of nicotine patch treatment, although they do not support efficacy beyond 24 weeks of treatment in a broad group of smokers.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01047527.