Use of nicotine replacement therapy in socioeconomically deprived young smokers: a community-based pilot randomised controlled trial.

Division of Respiratory Medicine, School of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Nottingham, UK.
Tobacco control (Impact Factor: 3.85). 11/2006; 15(5):373-6. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2005.014514
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Smoking is common in young people, particularly in disadvantaged groups, and continued smoking has a major impact on quality and quantity of life. Although many young smokers want to stop smoking, little is known about the design and effectiveness of cessation services for them.
To determine whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) when combined with counselling is effective in young smokers in a deprived area of Nottingham, UK.
We surveyed smoking prevalence and attitudes to smoking and quitting in young people accessing an open access youth project in a deprived area of Nottingham, and used the information gained to design a community based smoking cessation service incorporating a randomised controlled trial of nicotine patches against placebo given in association with individual behavioural support. We resurveyed smoking prevalence among project attendees after completing the pilot study.
Of 264 young people surveyed (median age 14 years, range 11-21), 49% were regular smokers. A total of 98 young people were recruited and randomised to receive either active nicotine patches on a six week reducing dose regimen (49 participants), or placebo (49 participants). Adherence to therapy was low, the median duration being one week, and 63 participants did not attend any follow up. At four weeks, five subjects receiving active NRT and two receiving placebo were abstinent, and at 13 weeks none were. Adverse effects were more common in the active group but none were serious. Smoking prevalence among 246 youth project attendees surveyed after the trial was 44%.
This study suggests that NRT in this context is unlikely to be effective in young smokers, not least because of low adherence to therapy. It also suggests that young smokers want help with smoking cessation, but that establishing the efficacy of smoking cessation services for young people who need them most will be very difficult.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is 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. OBJECTIVES: 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, oral and nasal sprays, 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. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). 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 (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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 to 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.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial is to test the efficacy and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in promoting end-of-treatment abstinence among adolescents and whether this relation is moderated by medication compliance. Participants (N=257, age: 16.7±1.13years) attended an information meeting followed by a 6- or 9-week treatment. Self-reported smoking cessation, compliance, and side effects were measured by means of online questionnaires. Intent-to-treat analyses showed that independent of compliance, NRT is effective in promoting abstinence rates after 2weeks (OR=2.02, 95% CI=1.11-3.69), but not end-of-treatment abstinence. However, end-of-treatment abstinence rates significantly increased in high-compliant (OR=1.09, 95% CI=1.01-1.17) and not in low-compliant participants. No serious adverse events were found. Future research is warranted to disentangle the process involving the decrease in abstinence rates and compliance rates from the third week after the quit date onwards.
    Journal of substance abuse treatment 09/2013; · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This field study tested an intervention that challenged beliefs about the effectiveness of various quit methods held by Salvation Army client smokers from two urban locations (N = 245). Data (surveys administered immediately after and one month post-intervention) were collected 2009-2010 and analyzed using primarily χ(2) and t-tests. The intervention changed client perceptions about the effectiveness of quitting methods. Compared to no-intervention controls, intervention participants reported significantly greater smoking reduction and greater likelihood of contacting the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line. Study implications/limitations are discussed and future research directions noted. This research was supported by grant UL1TR000427 from the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH.
    Substance Use &amp Misuse 02/2014; · 1.23 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from