CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 241Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects

Impact of over-the-counter sales on effectiveness of pharmaceutical aids for smoking cessation

Pierce, John P.·2002·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.288.10.1260
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Successful smoking cessation is a major public health goal. In controlled clinical trials, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and the antidepressant bupropion have been shown to significantly increase cessation rates only for moderate to heavy smokers (> or = 15 cigarettes/d). Nicotine replacement therapy is heavily promoted to the general population by both the pharmaceutical industry and tobacco control advocates. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in smoking cessation, pharmaceutical cessation aid use, and success in cessation in the general California population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The large population-based California Tobacco Surveys of 1992, 1996, and 1999, including 5247 (71.3% response rate), 9725 (72.9% response rate), and 6412 (68.4% response rate) respondents, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of cessation attempts (> or = 1 day) among smokers in the last year, use of pharmaceutical aids (mostly over-the-counter products since 1996), and cessation success. RESULTS: Between 1992 and 1999, cessation attempts among California smokers increased 61.4% (from 38.1% to 61.5%), and NRT use among quitters increased 50.5% (from 9.3% to 14.0%). A total of 17.2% of quitters used NRT, an antidepressant, or both as an aid to cessation in 1999. In 1996 and 1999, the median duration of aid use (14 days) was much less than recommended, and only about 20% of users had adjuvant one-on-one or group behavioral counseling. Use of NRT increased short-term cessation success in moderate to heavy smokers in each survey year. However, a long-term cessation advantage was only observed before NRT became widely available over-the-counter (August 1996). In 1999, no advantage for pharmaceutical aid users was observed in either the short or long term for the nearly 60% of California smokers classified as light smokers (<15 cigarettes/d). CONCLUSION: Since becoming available over the counter, NRT appears no longer effective in increasing long-term successful cessation in California smokers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.288.10.1260

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nortriptyline has an odds ratio of 2.3 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.4) for abstinence.

    “Nortriptyline (6 studies) ( 97 ) 2.3 (1.6, 3.4) 10% (6 – 14) 21% (15, 28) [9% – 36%]”

    From Tobacco addiction (2008) · cites this paper as [97]

  • No significant differences in cessation rates were observed between the recommended 300 mg dose and the 150 mg dose (OR 1.07, 95% CI 09.87, 1.32).

    “No significant differences in cessation rates were observed between the recommended 300 mg dose and the 150 mg dose (OR 1.07, 95% CI 09.87, 1.32;) (97).”

    From Tobacco addiction (2008) · cites this paper as [97]

  • Bupropion has an odds ratio of 1.9 (95% CI 1.7 to 2.2) for abstinence.

    “Bupropion (31 studies) ( 97 ) 1.9 (1.7, 2.2) 10% (6 – 14) 17% (15, 19) [10% – 26%]”

    From Tobacco addiction (2008) · cites this paper as [97]

  • Meta-analyses of clinical trial results show similar odds ratios, ranging from 1.9 to 3.2, across non-nicotine pharmacotherapies.

    “Meta-analyses conducted for clinical trial results show similar odds ratios, ranging from 1.9 to 3.2, across these non-nicotine pharmacotherapies (see Table 8).”

    From Tobacco addiction (2008) · cites this paper as [97]

  • The cessation effects of both nortriptyline and bupropion seem to be independent of their anti-depressant properties, as studies show efficacy in populations of smokers with and without depression.

    “The cessation effects of both nortriptyline and bupropion seem to be independent of their anti-depressant properties as studies show efficacy in populations of smokers with and without depression (97).”

    From Tobacco addiction (2008) · cites this paper as [97]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pierce, J. P.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Pierce, John P.
ORCID
Pierce, John P.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2002-09-11
Volume
288
Issue
10
Pages
1260
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.288.10.1260
OpenAlex
W2046687563
Cited by
240
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
FWCI
12.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Keywords
smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy, over-the-counter nicotine products, bupropion, light smokers, behavioral counseling, tobacco control
MeSH terms
Adult, Antidepressive Agents, California, Counseling, Drug Utilization, Nonprescription Drugs, Ganglionic Stimulants, Humans, Nicotine, Pharmaceutic Aids, Self-Help Groups, Proportional Hazards Models, Smoking Cessation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review