Comparative testing of 5 nicotine systems: initial use and preferences

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Differential effects of nicotine delivery rate on subjective drug effects, urges to smoke, heart rate and blood pressure in tobacco smokers

RATIONALE

The nicotine delivery rate is a key feature of tobacco product design, yet there have been limited human studies examining the effects of nicotine as a function of delivery rate.

OBJECTIVE

We developed an intravenous nicotine infusion protocol to evaluate differential effects of nicotine delivery rate on subjective drug effects, smoking urges, abstinence symptoms, heart rate, and blood pressure.

METHODS

Eighteen non-treatment seeking, overnight abstinent male and female smokers (18 to 30 years old), who smoked ≥ 5 cigarettes per day for the past year completed four sessions, in which they were randomly assigned to a saline infusion, or a 1 mg per 70-kg body weight dose of nicotine delivered over 1, 5, or 10 min at rates of 0.24, 0.048, or 0.024 μg/kg/s, respectively.

RESULTS

Smoking urges, as assessed by the Brief Questionnaire of Smoking Urges, were reduced relative to placebo for the 1- and 5-min infusion, but not the 10-min infusion. Although the 1- and 5-min infusions reduced smoking urges to a similar extent, the 1-min infusion induced a greater heart rate and blood pressure increase. Changes to subjective drug effects, heart rate, and blood pressure delineate the differential effects of nicotine delivery rate for these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We have characterized the delivery rate-response curve for a nicotine dose that is roughly the amount of nicotine (~ 1 mg) delivered by smoking a standard tobacco cigarette. Our findings reinforce the importance of nicotine delivery rate when evaluating the potential effects of nicotine from tobacco products.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking abstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I² = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I² = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I² = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I² = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I² = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I² = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.

Randomized Trial of Nicotine Inhaler for Pregnant Smokers

Background

Smoking during pregnancy is a serious public health problem in need of better treatments. Nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) (patch or gum) has not been shown in randomized placebo-controlled trials to be efficacious for smoking cessation during pregnancy. However, the nicotine inhaler may have advantages over other NRTs as it replicates some of the sensory effects of smoking.

Objective

The purpose of the study was examine the efficacy and safety of the nicotine inhaler for smoking cessation during pregnancy. We hypothesized that the nicotine inhaler compared to placebo would increase quit rates and reduce smoking during treatment and at the end of pregnancy, result in a higher birth weight and gestational age in the offspring, and reduce the incidence of preterm birth and low birth weight infants.

Study Design

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the nicotine inhaler for smoking cessation during pregnancy. Pregnant women who smoked ≥5 cigarettes daily received behavioral counseling and random assignment to a 6-week treatment with nicotine or placebo inhaler, followed by a 6-week taper period. Throughout treatment, we assessed tobacco exposure biomarkers, cessation rates, and adverse events. We also obtained information on birth outcomes. The primary outcome was smoking cessation at 32-34 weeks gestation; secondary outcomes were smoking reduction, birth weight and gestational age, and the incidence of preterm birth or low birth weight infants. We compared treatment groups on these measures using t-tests, Fisher's exact tests, and multivariate linear and logistic regression.

Results

Participants in the placebo (n=67) and nicotine (n=70) groups were comparable on baseline characteristics, though women in the placebo group reported a higher motivation to quit (p=0.016). Biochemically-validated smoking cessation rates were similar with nicotine and placebo (after 6 weeks of treatment: 4% (3/70) vs. 3% (2/67), respectively, p< 0.99, and at 32-34 weeks gestation: 10% (7/70) vs. 18% (12/67), respectively, p=0.220). Cigarettes per day (CPD) decreased over time in both groups (p< 0.001), with the nicotine inhaler group having a greater decrease than the placebo group two (p=0.022) and six weeks after the quit date (p=0.042), but not at 32-34 weeks gestation (p=0.108). Serum cotinine levels, birth weight, gestational age and reductions in carbon monoxide did not differ by group. However, the incidence of preterm delivery was higher in the placebo than the nicotine group: 15% (10/67) vs. 4% (3/67), respectively, p=0.030). The incidence of delivering a low birth weight infant was also higher in the placebo than the nicotine group: 15% (10/67) vs. 6% (4/67), respectively, p=0.035, but not after adjusting for preterm delivery p=0.268.

Conclusions

Although the nicotine inhaler group did not have a higher quit rate during pregnancy than the placebo group, the outcome of preterm delivery occurred less frequently in the nicotine group.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

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 is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. 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 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator 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 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative 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. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Naturalistic assessment of demand for cigarettes, snus, and nicotine gum

RATIONALE

Behavioral economic measures of demand provide estimates of tobacco product abuse liability and may predict effects of policy-related price regulation on consumption of existing and emerging tobacco products.

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, we examined demand for snus, a smokeless tobacco product, in comparison to both cigarettes and medicinal nicotine. We used both a naturalistic method in which participants purchased these products for use outside the laboratory, as well as laboratory-based self-administration procedures.

METHODS

Cigarette smokers (N = 42) used an experimental income to purchase their usual brand of cigarettes and either snus or gum (only one product available per session) across a range of prices, while receiving all products they purchased from one randomly selected price. In a separate portion of the study, participants self-administered these products during laboratory-based, progressive ratio sessions.

RESULT

Demand elasticity (sensitivity of purchasing to price) was significantly greater for snus than cigarettes. Elasticity for gum was intermediate between snus and cigarettes but was not significantly different than either. Demand intensity (purchasing unconstrained by price) was significantly lower for gum compared to cigarettes, with no significant difference observed between snus and cigarettes. Results of the laboratory-based, progressive ratio sessions were generally discordant with measures of demand elasticity, with significantly higher "breakpoints" for cigarettes compared to gum and no significant differences between other study products. Moreover, breakpoints and product purchasing were generally uncorrelated across tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

Under naturalistic conditions, snus appears more sensitive to price manipulation than either cigarettes or nicotine gum in existing smokers.

Gender differences in satisfaction ratings for nicotine electronic cigarettes by first-time users

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine electronic cigarettes (NECs) are becoming increasingly popular as a potentially safer alternative to tobacco but little is known regarding their subjective effects, including possible gender differences.

METHOD

Participants were New Zealand smokers with no intention to quit (N = 357) and whom had never used an NEC. During an interview in November-December 2012, participants sampled an NEC and rated it and their own-brand tobacco for satisfaction on a 10-point visual analogue scale. Participants were contacted again in February-March 2013 after a 10% increase in the tobacco excise tax on 1 January 2013.

RESULTS

Overall participants rated NECs 83.3% as satisfying as own-brand tobacco. Females rated NECs more highly than males. Of those who agreed to be re-interviewed (n = 227), 37.8% said they had cut back or made a change in their smoking habit and 7% had quit in February-March 2013. NEC satisfaction ratings predicted changes in smoking habit and reductions in nicotine dependence after controlling for covariates including demographic variables, factory-made vs. roll-your-own tobacco preference, and addiction scores.

CONCLUSION

Smokers' first impressions of NECs were very favourable, and were correlated with readiness to change after a tobacco tax increase. NECs appear to be particularly attractive for female smokers, and their use may help to improve the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy for women.

Familial aggregation of tobacco use behaviors among Amish men

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco use is a complex behavior. The Old Order Amish community offers unique advantages for the study of tobacco use because of homogenous ancestral background, sociocultural similarity, sex-specific social norms regarding tobacco use, and large family size. Tobacco use in the Old Order Amish community is almost exclusively confined to males.

METHODS

We examined characteristics of tobacco use and familial aggregation among 1,216 Amish males from cross-sectional prospectively collected data. Outcomes examined included ever using tobacco regularly, current use, quantity of use, duration of use, and frequency of use.

RESULTS

Sixteen percent of Amish men were current tobacco users, with the majority reporting cigar use only. Higher rates of tobacco use were found among sons of fathers who smoked compared with sons of fathers who did not smoke (46% vs. 22%, p < .001) as well as among brothers of index cases who smoked compared with brothers of index cases who did not smoke (61% vs. 29%, p < .001). After controlling for shared household effects and age, heritability accounted for 66% of the variance in ever smoking regularly (p = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

The familial patterns of tobacco use observed among Amish men highlight the important role of family in propagating tobacco use and support the usefulness of this population for future genetic studies of nicotine addiction.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

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.

An internet survey of use, opinions and preferences for smoking cessation medications: nicotine, varenicline, and bupropion

INTRODUCTION

We assessed use, compliance and preferences among smoking cessation medications in a "real world" sample of current and former smokers.

METHODS

Internet survey on a smoking cessation website (French/English, 2008-2010) to assess use of nicotine replacement therapies (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion.

RESULTS

There were 885 participants (39% current smokers, 61% former smokers), the majority of the sample (70%) was female. The most frequently used medications were, in order: patches (40%), varenicline (23%), nicotine gum (16%), nicotine lozenge/tablet (10%), bupropion (8%), and inhaler (3%). Satisfaction, perceived relief of craving/withdrawal and effectiveness were best for varenicline and lowest for gum. In current users, duration of use was longest for gum (121 days), lozenge/tablet (152 days) and shortest for patch (25 days). Daily use was good for lozenge (9 pieces/day) but less than recommended for gum (6 pieces/day) and inhaler (2 plugs/day). People who tried more than 1 medication found varenicline more effective and satisfactory than NRT or bupropion; and users preferred patch to gum. By smoking status, former smokers had more education, reported greater use of medications (daily, over time) and reported more satisfaction with medications than current smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

An Internet survey showed smoking cessation medications differed significantly in perceived effectiveness, satisfaction, and smoking status (former vs. current smoking). Except for lozenge/tablet, insufficient daily use remained a problem with acute NRTs. For all medications, improving outcome may require better instruction for proper use, approval of new indications (precessation) or development of new medications that bypass compliance issues that undermine success.

A systematic review of nicotine by inhalation: is there a role for the inhaled route?

INTRODUCTION

A considerable minority of adults remain addicted to smoking cigarettes despite substantial education and public health efforts. Nicotine replacement therapies have only modest long-term quit rates. The pulmonary route of nicotine delivery has advantages over other routes. However, there are regulatory and technical barriers to the development of pulmonary nicotine delivery devices, and hence, none are commercially available. Current knowledge about pulmonary nicotine delivery is scattered throughout the literature and other sources such as patent applications. This review draws together what is currently known about pulmonary nicotine delivery and identifies potential ways that deep lung delivery can be achieved with a simple portable device.

AIMS

To systematically review clinical trials of nicotine inhalers, determine whether they delivered nicotine via the lung, and identify ways that pulmonary delivery of medicinal nicotine might be achieved and the technical issues involved.

METHODS

Systematic search of Medline and Embase.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials met the inclusion criteria. Cough, reflex interruption of smooth inspiration, and throat scratch limited the usefulness of nicotine inhalers. The pharmacokinetic profiles of portable nicotine inhalers were inferior to smoking, but among commercially available products, electronic cigarettes are currently the most promising.

CONCLUSIONS

Pulmonary nicotine delivery might be maximized by use of nicotine salts, which have a more physiological pH than pure nicotine, by ensuring the mass of the particles is optimal for alveolar absorption, and by adding flavoring agents. Metered-dose inhalers potentially can deliver nicotine more efficiently than other nicotine products, facilitating smoking cessation and improving smokers' lives.

Oral tobacco products: preference and effects among smokers

BACKGROUND

Recently, oral tobacco products have been marketed specifically towards cigarette smokers. These products come in different nicotine doses and formulations (snus vs. lozenge). To date, little research has been conducted to determine how smokers respond to these products. The goal of this study was to examine if smokers prefer certain oral tobacco products based on their specific characteristics.

METHODS

Smokers interested in quitting underwent a sampling phase and a treatment phase. The sampling phase consisted of testing five different products varying in nicotine dose (high vs. moderate vs. low) and formulation (snus vs. lozenge): General Snus, Camel Snus, Marlboro Snus, Stonewall and Ariva. Each product was sampled in the natural environment on separate days. At the end of the sampling period, subjects chose which product they would use during the 2-week cigarette abstinence phase.

RESULTS

General Snus (high nicotine) was not preferred by any smoker. No significant differences in preferences were observed across the other tobacco products. During the smoking cessation phase, Camel Snus was generally associated with greater craving relief and satisfaction, reduced use of cigarettes, and greater abstinence during follow-up compared to other products.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in preferences for four of the five oral tobacco products but higher nicotine oral tobacco products were associated with better cessation outcomes among smokers who chose these products.

Does improved access and greater choice of nicotine replacement therapy affect smoking cessation success? Findings from a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To determine the effect of offering smokers who want to quit easy access to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), a period of familiarization and choice of product on smoking abstinence at 6 months.

DESIGN

Single-blind, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

New Zealand.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1410 adult smokers who called the national Quitline for quitting support were randomized to usual Quitline care or a box containing different NRT products (patch, gum, inhaler, sublingual tablet, oral pouch) to try for a week prior to quitting, and then to choose one or two of these products for 8 weeks' use.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence 6 months after quit day. Secondary outcomes included continuous abstinence, cigarette consumption, withdrawal, NRT choice and serious adverse events at 1 and 3 weeks and 3 and 6 months.

FINDINGS

No differences in 6-month quit rates (7-day point prevalence or continuous abstinence) were observed between the groups. However, smokers allocated to the intervention group were more likely to have quit smoking at 3 months [self-reported point prevalence, relative risk (RR)=1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.35, P=0.03], had a longer time to relapse (median 70 days versus 28 days, P<0.01) and used significantly more NRT. The selection box concept was highly acceptable to users, with the patch and inhaler combination the most popular choice (34%).

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of smoking abstinence at 6 months, offering smokers who want to quit free access to a wide range of nicotine replacement therapy, including a 1-week period of familiarization and choice of up to two products, appears no different to offering reduced cost and choice of nicotine replacement therapy, with no familiarization period. This trial is registered with the Australasian Clinical Trials Network Number: ACTRN 12606000451505.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: current advances and research topics

Promoting smoking cessation is among the key medical interventions aimed at reducing worldwide morbidity and mortality in this century. Both behavioural counselling and pharmacotherapy have been shown to significantly increase long-term abstinence rates, and combining the two treatment modalities is recommended. This article provides an update on pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation in the general population. Current first-line agents used to support quit attempts are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline. Research suggests that abstinence rates can be increased by combining different forms of NRT or simultaneously administering NRT and non-nicotine medications. New treatments targeting the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor as well as other pathophysiological pathways involved in nicotine addiction are being developed, with nicotine vaccines now being tested in phase III clinical trials. Among the numerous research topics currently addressed, pharmacogenetics and tailoring therapy to specific groups of smokers look most promising. However, substantial progress is unlikely to be made unless social gradients impeding effective treatment of all smokers are overcome. In addition, public smoking bans and reimbursement of medication costs are crucial in reducing the future burden of disease caused by smoking on a global level.

US smokers' reactions to a brief trial of oral nicotine products

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that cigarette smokers will switch to alternative oral nicotine delivery products to reduce their health risks if informed of the relative risk difference. However, it is important to assess how smokers are likely to use cigarette alternatives before making predictions about their potential to promote individual or population harm reduction.

OBJECTIVES

This study examines smokers' interest in using a smokeless tobacco or a nicotine replacement product as a substitute for their cigarettes.

METHODS

The study included 67 adult cigarette smokers, not currently interested in quitting, who were given an opportunity to sample four alternative oral nicotine products: 1) Camel Snus, 2) Marlboro Snus, 3) Stonewall dissolvable tobacco tablets, and 4) Commit nicotine lozenges. At visit 1, subjects were presented information about the relative benefits/risks of oral nicotine delivery compared to cigarettes. At visit 2, subjects were given a supply of each of the four products to sample at home for a week. At visit 3, subjects received a one-week supply of their preferred product to see if using such products reduced or eliminated cigarette use.

RESULTS

After multiple product sampling, participants preferred the Commit lozenges over the three smokeless tobacco products (p = 0.011). Following the one week single-product trial experience, GEE models controlling for gender, age, level of education, baseline cigarettes use, and alternative product chosen, indicated a significant decline in cigarettes smoked per day across one week of single-product sampling (p < 0.01, from 11.8 to 8.7 cigarettes per day), but no change in alternative product use (approximately 4.5 units per day). Biomarkers of exposure showed no change in cotinine, but a 19% reduction in exhaled CO (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study show that smokers, who are currently unwilling to make a quit attempt, may be willing to use alternative products in the short term as a temporary substitute for smoking. However, this use is more likely to be for partial substitution (i.e. they will continue to smoke, albeit at a lower rate) rather than complete substitution. Of the various substitutes offered, smokers were more willing to use a nicotine replacement product over a tobacco-based product.

The effects of nicotine, denicotinized tobacco, and nicotine-containing tobacco on cigarette craving, withdrawal, and self-administration in male and female smokers

The effects of the acute administration of nicotine [through nicotine inhalers (NI) and placebo inhalers (PI)], nicotine-containing tobacco (NT), and denicotinized tobacco (DT), on smokers' subjective responses and motivation to smoke were examined in 22 smokers (12 male, 10 female; 11 low dependent, 11 high dependent). During four randomized blinded sessions, participants self-administered NI, PI, NT, or DT, and assessed their effects using Visual Analogue Scales and the Brief Questionnaire of Smoking Urges. They could then self-administer their preferred brand of cigarettes using a progressive ratio task. NT and DT were each associated with increased satisfaction and relaxation as well as decreased craving relative to the inhalers and NT increased ratings of stimulation relative to each of the other products. Both NT and DT delayed the onset of preferred tobacco self-administration relative to NI and PI but only NT reduced the total amount self-administered. Sex differences were evident in the effects of DT on withdrawal-related cravings with women experiencing greater DT-induced craving relief than men. Findings suggest that DT is effective in acutely reducing many smoking abstinence symptoms, especially in women, but a combination of nicotine and non-nicotine tobacco ingredients may be necessary to suppress smoking behavior.

Comparison of craving and withdrawal among four combination nicotine treatments

OBJECTIVE

To assess the appearance of craving and withdrawal among four combination nicotine replacement treatments (NRTs).

METHODS

In a crossover trial of NRT preferences, 27 smokers tested 4 combinations of nicotine treatments: 2 mg/4 mg gums + 15 mg patch, 2 mg/4 mg lozenges + 15 mg patch, inhalers + 15 mg patch, and 10 + 15 mg double patch (approximately 25 mg). Overnight abstinence was required prior to (1/2) day testing of each combination. Combination NRTs were used for approximately 6 h/day. Subjects resumed smoking each afternoon. For this report, we used the Smoker Anchored Withdrawal Grid to look at craving and withdrawal scores over 5 days of testing (smoking baseline + four treatment days).

RESULTS

"Urge to smoke" and "total withdrawal" showed a rise from baseline to NRT use for the double patch but not for the three acute + patch conditions. Lozenge/patch scores did not rise from baseline for "craving" and "miss a cigarette" but did for gum/patch, inhaler/patch, and double patch. The best relief occurred for NRTs of choice.

CONCLUSION

This was a small but suggestive finding regarding the potential of patch plus adjunct ad lib NRT. With little data on relief with NRT combinations, more systematic tests are needed.

Update on pharmacologic options for smoking cessation treatment

Although the proportion of the adult population in the United States that smokes has decreased steadily, the rate of successful quit attempts is still low. Smokers develop nicotine dependence that resembles other addictions, and may require multiple attempts and long-term treatment to sustain abstinence. Currently available first-line agents for smoking cessation therapy include nicotine replacement therapy, which is available in several formulations, including transdermal patch, gum, nasal spray, inhaler, and lozenge; bupropion, an atypical antidepressant; and varenicline, a partial agonist of the alpha(4)beta(2) nicotinic acetylcholine receptor that was recently developed and approved specifically for smoking cessation therapy. Second-line agents are nortriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant agent, and clonidine, an antihypertensive drug. With the exception of varenicline, which has been shown to offer significant improvement in abstinence rates over bupropion, all of the available treatments appear similarly effective. However, the adverse event profiles of nortriptyline and clonidine make them more appropriate for second-line therapy, when first-line treatments have failed or are not tolerated. Rimonabant, a cannabinoid-1 receptor antagonist that was being developed for smoking cessation, received a nonapprovable letter from the FDA in 2006 and there is no further information as to whether development for this indication is continuing for this agent. Nicotine vaccines are under investigation and offer promise, especially for relapse prevention. Ultimately, selection of pharmacologic agent should be based on the patient's comorbidities and preferences, as well as on the agent's adverse event profile.

Self-administration of intravenous nicotine in male and female cigarette smokers

Although nicotine is the main addictive chemical in tobacco, there have been few studies of pure nicotine self-administration in humans. The goal of this study was to test the parameters of an intravenous (IV) nicotine self-administration model using nicotine doses presumed to be within the range of those of average intake from cigarette smoking. Six male and four female smokers participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, which consisted of one adaptation and three experimental sessions. In each experimental session, subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three doses of nicotine (0.1, 0.4, or 0.7 mg). The lowest nicotine dose, 0.1 mg, was chosen to be approximately half the amount of nicotine inhaled from one puff of a cigarette. During each experimental session, subjects first sampled the assigned nicotine dose and placebo and then had the opportunity to choose between nicotine and placebo for a total of six choices over a 90-min period. Out of six options, the average (SEM) number of nicotine choices were 3.0 (0.48) for 0.1 mg, 4.7 (0.48) for 0.4 mg and 4.5 (0.46) for 0.7 mg, indicating a significant effect of nicotine dose on nicotine choice. Both the 0.4 and 0.7, but not the 0.1 mg, nicotine doses were preferred to placebo. These higher doses also produced increases in heart rate, blood pressure, and ratings of drug liking and high. Overall, these findings indicate that smokers chose both the 0.4 and the 0.7 mg nicotine doses over placebo. Our model may be useful in the evaluation of the effects of both behavioral and pharmacological manipulations on nicotine self-administration in humans.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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.

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, 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.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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.

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 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.

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 50-70%, 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.

Smoking cessation: significance and implications for children

A number of people in the USA who are still current smokers remain a staggering figure. Although this number continues to decrease, there is still a considerable amount of second-hand smoke. More importantly and for the purpose of this review, the detrimental effects of passive smoke in children is significant. We will not review the specific health effects of passive smoke, but for pediatricians, in particular, it is important to place in perspective programs that are available to influence the parents of children to stop smoking. Indeed, approximately 25% of all children aged 3-11 live in a household with at least one smoker. Despite the increasing number of communities in the states that have instituted restrictions or complete bans on smoking in the workplace and in many public areas, the principal site of smoking remains the home.

Reevaluating the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis

RATIONALE

The view of smoking as an addiction to nicotine implies that nicotine is an addictive drug and a primary reinforcer. However, nicotine other than in tobacco does not appear to be very rewarding for smokers. This potential anomaly to the nicotine addiction thesis is resolved by the proposition that the reward associated with smoking depends on "high-nicotine boli." According to the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis, smoked nicotine reaches the brain in 5-10 s in high concentrations, which provide reinforcing "hits" of nicotine to the brain.

OBJECTIVES

Because of its essential role in the nicotine addiction thesis, this review set out to examine the current empirical basis of the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed studies that bear on two questions: First, does nicotine from cigarettes reach the brain significantly faster than from other nicotine delivery devices? Second, is there a relationship between delivery kinetics and any rewarding effects of nicotine?

RESULTS

There is little empirical support for the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis. Several studies found that arterial nicotine levels associated with smoking are much lower than predicted by the nicotine delivery kinetics thesis and not higher than with other nicotine delivery devices. More importantly, comparisons of nicotine delivery devices with varying speeds of delivery do not suggest any correlation between nicotine delivery profile and subjective reward.

CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that the wide endorsement of the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis is unjustified. Critical research is required to resolve the anomalies within the nicotine addiction theory of smoking.

Maximizing Smoking Cessation in Clinical Practice: Pharmacologic and Behavioral Interventions

Clinicians are in a unique position to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality by helping their patients quit smoking. At each visit, clinicians should document smoking status, provide strong and clear advice to quit, and recommend and prescribe pharmacotherapy for patients who are motivated to quit, which can double the odds of success. Effective pharmacotherapies include nicotine replacement, bupropion, and varenicline, which was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Behavioral counseling to develop a quit plan and extended follow-up are critical to maximize quit rates but are rarely provided by clinicians due to time constraints and lack of expertise. As an alternative, the authors recommend referral to telephone quitlines that provide no-cost behavioral counseling by specialists. Hospitals should implement systemwide procedures to ensure that smokers are identified at admission and trained staff is available to provide smoking cessation consults that include a minimum of 20 minutes of inpatient counseling with follow-up for at least 1 month.

A Nicotine Mouth Spray for Smoking Cessation: A Pilot Study of Preference, Safety and Efficacy

BACKGROUND

Various formulations of nicotine replacement therapy are commercially available.

OBJECTIVES

It was the aim of this study to test preference, safety and efficacy of a new nicotine mouth spray (1 mg/actuation; NicoNovum).

METHODS

One hundred healthy smokers wanting to quit (mean age 43.1 +/- 11.2 years) were included. They were given the mouth spray, as well as 2-mg nicotine gums and nicotine oral inhalers to try out for 1 week. Subsequently, all participants were randomized into 3 groups - mouth spray (n = 50), gum (n = 25) and inhaler (n = 25) - and treated for 3 months.

RESULTS

Fifty-four of the hundred smokers preferred the spray, compared with 28 and 18 who preferred the gum and inhaler, respectively (p < 0.01 for spray vs. both the gum and inhaler). At 6 months, the sustained abstinence rates were 8 (16%), 5 (20%) and 2 (8%) for the mouth spray, gum and inhaler, respectively (p values = n.s.). Adverse effects (AEs) were mostly drug-related local symptoms, most frequently reported at the end of the tryout period: out of 106 drug-related AEs, 90 were due to the spray, 11 and 5 to the inhaler and gum, respectively. The three most frequent AEs were almost exclusively caused by the spray: burning of the tongue/throat reported by 35, nausea by 18, and hiccup by 16 participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants preferred the mouth spray over the gum and inhaler, but its use was coupled with a high rate of local AEs. The efficacy of the mouth spray seemed comparable with the one obtained by the gum and inhaler. Further studies are necessary to show whether a reduction in the dose per actuation to about 0.5 mg would result in less side effects, which in turn might yield higher long-term drug compliance and possibly higher success rates than the ones achieved with other forms of nicotine replacement therapy.

Preferences among four combination nicotine treatments

RATIONALE

Acute nicotine replacement treatments (NRTs) are disliked or misused, leading to insufficient nicotine intake and poor outcome. Patches provide steady nicotine but are slow and passive. Combining systems may improve efficacy with acute NRTs tailored for compliance.

OBJECTIVE

To test initial reactions to and use preferences among combinations of NRTs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Smokers (n=27) tested four combination NRTs in a 5-day crossover trial: 2/4-mg gum + 15-mg patch (G/P), 2/4-mg lozenges + 15-mg patch (L/P), inhaler + 15-mg patch (I/P), and 10 mg + 15-mg patches (P/P). Subjects rated an NRT combination each day after 5-6 h of use and ranked among the NRTs after testing all treatments.

RESULTS

Double-patches (P/P) were ranked highest for "ease of use", "safety", and "use in public". However, for "help to quit", 70% preferred some form of acute-patch combination (A/P) compared to 30% choosing P/P. For "use under stress" (an immediate need), 93% preferred A/P systems compared to 7% choosing P/P. L/P ranked lowest for "ease of use", I/P and L/P were lowest on "safety", and I/P ranked lowest for "use in public". Expectations of NRTs changed with test experience for patches (better) and lozenges (worse).

CONCLUSIONS

In brief testing, all combinations were acceptable. P/P was favored for ease, safety, and public use, but a majority chose A/P systems for help in quitting and use under stress. Combined use is viable and needs to be made known and accessible to smokers.

Methods to assess potential reduced exposure products

The availability of tobacco products purported to reduce toxin exposure or potentially reduce health risks necessitates the development of methods and identification of biomarkers that can be used to assess these products. These assessments occur on multiple levels and stages, from identifying constituents in the tobacco products and smoke, to human exposure and health effects trials, to postmarketing surveillance. A conference of multidisciplinary experts was convened to present and discuss methods and biomarkers to assess these products and to consider the infrastructure necessary to facilitate the evaluation process. Although no currently available set of measures was thought to be sufficient for determining the relative health risk of potential reduced exposure products, this paper provides a blueprint for future research toward this end.

Comparison of three nicotine treatments: initial reactions and preferences with guided use

RATIONALE

Misuse or dislike of nicotine replacement treatments (NRTs) undermines their effectiveness. Brief testing among NRTs could allow tailoring by preference to improve outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To test initial reactions/preferences to NRTs in a single session crossover design with guided use.

METHODS

Smokers were offered two doses of three NRTs: gum (2 and 4 mg), inhaler, and nasal spray (NNS) in a 5-h test with proper use enforced. Subjects rated each NRT and ranked among NRTs on use variables and preferences.

RESULTS

Gum was ranked over inhaler and NNS for "ease of use," "safety" and "prefer in public." Four-milligram gum was rated higher than 2 mg on several variables. With experience, "ease of use" and "liking" improved for gum. Both inhaler and NNS ranked low on considering "use >3 months" vs gum. Dislike of NRT was reflected in refusal of second doses. For those testing all doses (n=9), inhaler ranked last on "relief of withdrawal," "choose under stress," and "choice to help quit." Craving and withdrawal were relieved over time with any NRT use.

CONCLUSIONS

Sampling of treatments can identify reactions key to initial compliance with these NRTs.