Long-term nicotine replacement therapy: a randomized clinical trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schnoll RA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4410859 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Long-term nicotine replacement therapy: a randomized clinical trial.
Schnoll Robert A RA Goelz Patricia M PM Veluz-Wilkins Anna A Blazekovic Sonja S Powers Lindsay L Leone Frank T FT Gariti Peter P Wileyto E Paul EP Hitsman Brian B
JAMA internal medicine 20150401 4
<h4>Importance</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare 8 (standard), 24 (extended), and 52 (maintenance) weeks of nicotine patch treatment for promoting tobacco abstinence.<h4>Des ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Importance:Smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have particular difficulty quitting. Long-term nicotine replacement therapy (LT-NRT) might offer a strategy for reducing harm from cigarettes and provide a pathway for later cessation. Objective:To compare the effect of LT-NRT vs standard smoking cessation (SSC) on exposure to cigarette smoke, harm related to smoking, and cessation among smokers with COPD. Design, Setting, and Participants:This unblinded, randomized clinical trial recruited smokers who self-reported a diagnosis of COPD at any level of readiness to quit from May 23, 2014, through November 30, 2015. The 12-month follow-up was completed December 6, 2016. Patients were recruited at a clinical research unit of an academic medical center. Analysis was based on intention to treat and performed from March 8 through November 30, 2017. Interventions:Standard smoking cessation treatment included 10 weeks of NRT and 4 follow-up counseling sessions for those willing to make a quit attempt. Long-term NRT included 12 months of NRT and 6 follow-up counseling sessions regardless of initial willingness to quit. Overall, 198 patients were randomized to SSC, and 197 were included in the primary analysis; 200 patients were randomized to LT-NRT, and 197 were included in the primary analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was 7-day abstinence verified by carbon monoxide (CO) levels at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), exposure to CO, urinary excretion of 4-methylnitrosamino-1-3-pyridyl-1-butanol (NNAL) (a smoking-related carcinogen), and adverse events. Results:Among 398 patients who were randomized (59.8% female; mean [SD] age, 56.0 [9.3] years), the mean (SD) CPD was 23.1 (12.3). Twelve-month follow-up was completed by 373 participants (93.7%), and 394 (99.0%) were included in the primary analysis. At 12 months, CO-verified abstinence occurred in 23 of 197 participants (11.7%) in the SSC arm and 24 of 197 (12.2%) in the LT-NRT arm (risk difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.9% to 6.9%). Continuing smokers in the SSC and LT-NRT arms had similar, significantly reduced harms caused by smoking, including cigarette consumption by 12.4 and 14.5 CPD, respectively, exhaled CO level by 5.5 and 7.8 ppm, respectively, and mean urinary NNAL excretion by 21.7% and 23.0%, respectively. In multivariate analyses, continuing smokers with greater adherence to NRT experienced less reduction in NNAL exposure. The frequency of major adverse cardiac events was similar in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance:Similar rates of cessation and similar reductions in exposure to tobacco smoke resulted with LT-NRT and SSC. Among continuing smokers, ongoing use of NRT was not associated with reductions in smoke exposure. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02148445.
| S-EPMC6324503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMobile interventions enable personalized behavioral support that could improve smoking cessation (SC) in smokers ready to quit. Scalable interventions, including unmotivated smokers, are needed. We evaluated the effect of personalized behavioral support through mobile interventions plus nicotine replacement therapy sampling (NRT-S) on SC in Hong Kong community smokers.MethodsA total of 664 adult daily cigarette smokers (74.4% male, 51.7% not ready to quit in 30 days) were proactively recruited from smoking hotspots and individually randomized (1:1) to the intervention and control groups (each, n=332). Both groups received brief advice and active referral to SC services. The intervention group received 1-week NRT-S at baseline and 12-week personalized behavioral support through SC advisor-delivered Instant Messaging (IM) and a fully automated chatbot. The control group received regular text messages regarding general health at a similar frequency. Primary outcomes were carbon monoxide-validated smoking abstinence at 6 and 12 months post-treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included self-reported 7-day point-prevalence and 24-week continuous abstinence, quit attempts, smoking reduction, and SC service use at 6 and 12 months.ResultsBy intention-to-treat, the intervention group did not significantly increase validated abstinence at 6 months (3.9% vs 3.0%, OR=1.31; 95% CI: 0.57-3.04) and 12 months (5.4% vs 4.5%, OR=1.21; 95% CI: 0.60-2.45), as were self-reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence, smoking reduction, and SC service use at 6 and 12 months. More participants in the intervention than control group made a quit attempt by 6 months (47.0% vs 38.0%, OR=1.45; 95% CI: 1.06-1.97). Intervention engagement rates were low, but engagement in IM alone or combined with chatbot showed higher abstinence at 6 months (adjusted odds ratios, AORs=4.71 and 8.95, both p<0.05).ConclusionsPersonalized behavioral support through mobile interventions plus NRT-S did not significantly improve abstinence in community smokers compared to text only messaging. The suboptimal intervention engagement needs to be addressed in future studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04001972.
| S-EPMC10037427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOur group recently completed a randomized controlled trial, evaluating the efficacy of providing 5 weeks of free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; in the form of the nicotine patch) by expedited postal mail without behavioral assistance to regular adult smokers interested in receiving it. The findings revealed that mailed provision of nicotine patches resulted in more than a doubling of quit rates at a six-month follow-up compared to a no intervention control group. While this trial provided evidence for the effectiveness of mailed nicotine patches in promoting cessation, the findings speak only to the short term effectiveness of this approach. As relapse to smoking is known to occur beyond the 6 month period, it is important to evaluate whether the net benefit of NRT in naturalistic settings can be maintained long-term. The present study aims to perform a 5-year follow-up survey of participants in the original trial to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of mailed NRT.Methods/designTrained interviewers will contact participants in the randomized controlled trial 5 years post-enrollment. A total of 924 participants will be eligible to be contacted. Interviewers will first assess participants' smoking status and their level of nicotine dependence. Participants reporting not currently smoking will be asked whether they have smoked tobacco, even a puff, in the last 30 days (primary outcome measure: 30-day point prevalence abstinence), past 6 months (secondary outcome measure: prolonged 6-month abstinence), and since the 8-week follow-up survey (secondary outcome measure: > 4 year continuous abstinence). Interviewers will be blind to experimental condition at the time the primary outcome measure will be assessed. It is hypothesized that participants who received nicotine patches at baseline will display significantly higher quit rates at the 5-year follow-up as compared to participants who did not receive nicotine patches at baseline.DiscussionIf the study finds that the mailed distribution of free NRT is effective at promoting long-term cessation, it would provide further evidence to move forward with policies designed to make NRT treatment readily and freely available to smokers who request it.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01429129 , Registered 2 September 2011; NCT03097445 , Registered 25 March 2017.
| S-EPMC5516338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncreased smartphone ownership has led to the development of mobile smoking cessation programs. Although the related body of evidence, gathered through the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), has grown in quality and rigor, there is a need for longer-term data to assess associated smoking cessation durability.ObjectiveThe primary aim was to compare smoking cessation outcomes at 52 weeks in adult smokers randomized to a mobile smoking cessation program, Pivot (intervention), versus QuitGuide (control). The secondary aims included comparison of other smoking-related behaviors, outcomes and participant feedback, and exploratory analyses of baseline factors associated with smoking cessation.MethodsIn this remote pilot RCT, cigarette smokers in the United States were recruited on the web. Participants were offered 12 weeks of free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Data were self-reported via a web-based questionnaire with videoconference biovalidation in participants who reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence (PPA). Outcomes focused on cessation rates with additional assessment of quit attempts, cigarettes per day (CPD), self-efficacy via the Smoking Abstinence Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, NRT use, and participant feedback. Cessation outcomes included self-reported 7- and 30-day PPA, abstinence from all tobacco products, and continuous abstinence. PPA and continuous abstinence were biovalidated using witnessed breath carbon monoxide samples. Exploratory post hoc regression analyses were performed to identify baseline variables associated with smoking cessation.ResultsParticipants comprised 188 smokers (n=94, 50% in the Pivot group and n=94, 50% in the QuitGuide group; mean age 46.4, SD 9.2 years; n=104, 55.3% women; n=128, 68.1% White individuals; mean CPD 17.6, SD 9.0). Several cessation rates were higher in the Pivot group (intention to treat): self-reported continuous abstinence was 20% (19/94) versus 9% (8/94; P=.03) for QuitGuide, biochemically confirmed abstinence was 31% (29/94) versus 18% (17/94; P=.04) for QuitGuide, and biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence was 19% (18/94) versus 9% (8/94; P=.046) for QuitGuide. More Pivot participants (93/94, 99% vs 80/94, 85% in the QuitGuide group; P<.001) placed NRT orders (mean 3.3, SD 2.0 vs 1.8, SD 1.6 for QuitGuide; P<.001). Pivot participants had increased self-efficacy via the Smoking Abstinence Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (mean point increase 3.2, SD 7.8, P<.001 vs 1.0, SD 8.5, P=.26 for QuitGuide). QuitGuide participants made more mean quit attempts (7.0, SD 6.3 for Pivot vs 9.5, SD 7.5 for QuitGuide; P=.01). Among those who did not achieve abstinence, QuitGuide participants reported greater CPD reduction (mean -34.6%, SD 35.5% for Pivot vs -46.1%, SD 32.3% for QuitGuide; P=.04). Among those who reported abstinence, 90% (35/39) of Pivot participants and 90% (26/29) of QuitGuide participants indicated that their cessation program helped them quit.ConclusionsThis pilot RCT supports the long-term effectiveness of the Pivot mobile smoking cessation program, with abstinence rates durable to 52 weeks.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04955639; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04955639.
| S-EPMC10546267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care is the most important point of healthcare contact for smokers. Brief physician advice to quit, based on the 5As/AAR model, offers some efficacy but is inconsistently administered and has limited population impact. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling, defined as provision of a brief NRT starter kit, when added to the 5As/AAR, is well-suited to primary care because it is simple, brief, and can be provided to all smokers. This article describes the design and methods of an ongoing comparative effectiveness trial testing standard care vs. standard care + NRT sampling within primary care.MethodsSmokers were recruited directly from primary care practices between July 2014 and December 2017 within an established network of South Carolina clinics. Interventions were delivered randomly by clinic personnel, and phone-based follow-ups were centrally coordinated by research staff to track outcomes through six months post-intervention. Primary study aims are to examine the impact of NRT sampling on smoking, inclusive of cessation, quit attempts, and uptake of evidence-based treatment.ResultsTwenty-two clinics were recruited. Across clinics, patient census ranged from 985 to 10,957 and number of providers ranged from 1 to 63. Average patient age across clinics was 52.9 years and smoking prevalence across ranged from 10.6% to 28.5%.ConclusionImproving the effectiveness and reach of brief interventions within primary care could have a considerable impact on population quit rates. We consider the advantages and disadvantages of key methodological decisions relevant to the design of future primary care-based cessation trials.
| S-EPMC6133738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSmoking cessation medications are routinely used in health care; it is vital to identify medications that most effectively treat this leading cause of preventable mortality.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacies of varenicline, combination nicotine replacement therapy (C-NRT), and the nicotine patch for 26-week quit rates.Design, setting, and participantsThree-group randomized intention-to-treat clinical trial occurring from May 2012 to November 2015 among smokers recruited in the Madison, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, communities; 65.5% of smokers offered the study (2687/4102) refused participation prior to randomization.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to one of three 12-week open-label smoking cessation pharmacotherapy groups: (1) nicotine patch only (n = 241); (2) varenicline only (including 1 prequit week; n = 424); and (3) C-NRT (nicotine patch + nicotine lozenge; n = 421). Six counseling sessions were offered.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported initial abstinence, prolonged abstinence at 26 weeks, and point-prevalence abstinence at weeks 4, 12, and 52.ResultsAmong 1086 smokers randomized (52% women; 67% white; mean age, 48 years; mean of 17 cigarettes smoked per day), 917 (84%) provided 12-month follow-up data. Treatments did not differ on any abstinence outcome measure at 26 or 52 weeks, including point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks (nicotine patch, 22.8% [55/241]; varenicline, 23.6% [100/424]; and C-NRT, 26.8% [113/421]) or at 52 weeks (nicotine patch, 20.8% [50/241]; varenicline, 19.1% [81/424]; and C-NRT, 20.2% [85/421]). At 26 weeks, the risk differences for abstinence were, for patch vs varenicline, -0.76% (95% CI, -7.4% to 5.9%); for patch vs C-NRT, -4.0% (95% CI, -10.8% to 2.8%); and for varenicline vs C-NRT, -3.3% (95% CI, -9.1% to 2.6%). All medications were well tolerated, but varenicline produced more frequent adverse events than did the nicotine patch for vivid dreams, insomnia, nausea, constipation, sleepiness, and indigestion.Conclusions and relevanceAmong adults motivated to quit smoking, 12 weeks of open-label treatment with nicotine patch, varenicline, or C-NRT produced no significant differences in biochemically confirmed rates of smoking abstinence at 26 weeks. The results raise questions about the relative effectiveness of intense smoking pharmacotherapies.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01553084.
| S-EPMC4824537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsWithin the context of busy clinical settings, health-care providers need practical, evidence-based options to engage smokers in quitting. Sampling of nicotine replacement therapy [i.e. provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT starter kits)] is a brief, pragmatic strategy to address this need. We aimed to compare the effects of NRT sampling plus standard care (SC), relative to SC alone, provided by primary care providers during routine clinic visits.DesignCluster-randomized clinical trial.SettingTwenty-two primary care clinics in South Carolina, USA.ParticipantsAdult smokers [n = 1245; 61% female, mean age = 50.7, standard deviation (SD) = 13.5] both motivated and unmotivated to quit, seen during routine clinical visit. Interventions were provider-delivered SC (n = 652, 12 clinics) cessation advice or SC + a 2-week supply of both nicotine patch and lozenge, with minimal instructions on use (n = 593; 10 clinics).MeasurementsThe primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 6-month follow-up, using intent-to-treat. Additional outcomes included NRT use and quit attempts, assessed at 1, 3 and 6 months following baseline.FindingsSeven-day point prevalence abstinence rates were significantly higher in the NRT sampling group throughout follow-up, including at 6 months [12 versus 8%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-2.4]. NRT sampling increased prevalence of any use of NRT (65 versus 25%, OR = 5.8, 95% CI = 4.3-7.7), with higher prevalence of use at 6 months (25 versus 14%, OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.5-2.7). NRT sampling increased the rate of quit attempts in the initial month (24 versus 18%, OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0-2.3) but had no significant effect on overall rate of quit attempts (48 versus 45%, OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.8-1.7).ConclusionProviding smokers with a free 2-week starter kit of nicotine replacement therapy increased quit attempts, use of stop smoking medications and smoking abstinence compared with standard care in a primary care setting.
| S-EPMC7292788 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3198706 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5362067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We compared acceptability, adherence and efficacy of trans-dermal nicotine patches and cognitive behavioral therapy (Group 1) to cognitive behavioral therapy alone (Group 2) in minority pregnant smokers. This is a randomized controlled trial. 52 women were recruited during pregnancy with a mean gestational age 18.5 ± 5.0 weeks and followed through delivery. Randomization was by site and initial cotinine levels. Interventionists and interviewers were blinded to group assignment. Two different nicotine replacement therapy dosing regiments were administered according to the baseline salivary cotinine level. A process evaluation model summarized patient adherence. The main outcome measure was self-report of cessation since last visit, confirmed by exhaled carbon monoxide. Analyses of categorical and continuous measures were conducted as well as linear trend tests of salivary cotinine levels. Women lost to follow-up were considered treatment failures. Participants were on average 27.5 ± 5.4 years old, 81 % were single, 69 % unemployed and 96 % were Medicaid eligible. A process evaluation indicated patients in both groups were adherent to scheduled program procedures through Visit 4, but not for Visits 5 and 6. Confirmed quit rates were: at visit 3, 23 (Group 1) and 0 % (Group 2) (p = 0.02); at visits 4 and 5, no difference; at visit 6, 19 (Group 1) and 0 % (Group 2) (p = 0.05). Group 1 delivered infants with a mean gestational age of 39.4 weeks versus 38.4 weeks in Group 2 (p = 0.02). 73 % (52/71) of the eligible smokers agreed to participate and 65 % (17/26) of Group 1 completed the protocol (i.e. attended 6 visits). A comparison of Group 1 and 2 quit rates confirmed a non-significant difference.
| S-EPMC3679235 | biostudies-literature