CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 972Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

Silagy, C, Lancaster, T, Stead, L, Mant, D, Fowler, G·2004·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This reduces withdrawal symptoms associated with smoking cessation to help resist the urge to smoke cigarettes. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of the different forms of nicotine replacement therapy (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes; to determine whether the effect is influenced by the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated, the dosage and form of the NRT used, or the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; and to determine whether combinations of NRT are more effective than one type alone. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or 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 subjects, the dose and duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomisation, 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. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 49 trials of nicotine gum, 32 of transdermal nicotine patch, four of intranasal nicotine spray, four of inhaled nicotine and two of nicotine sublingual tablet. Three trials compared combinations of two forms of nicotine therapy with one form alone. The odds ratio for abstinence with NRT compared to control was 1.72 (95% confidence interval 1.60 to 1.84), The odds ratios for the different forms of NRT were 1.63 for gum, 1.77 for patches, 2.27 for nasal spray, 2.08 for inhaled nicotine and 1.73 for nicotine sublingual tablet. These odds were largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. Eight weeks of patch therapy was as effective as longer courses and there was no evidence that tapered therapy was better than abrupt withdrawal. Wearing the patch only during waking hours (16 hours/day) was as effective as wearing it for 24 hours/day. The odds ratio for abstinence in the trials which directly compared 4 mg versus 2 mg gum in highly dependent smokers found a significant benefit in favour of 4 mg gum (odds ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 1.69 to 4.22). There is no strong evidence that combinations of forms of NRT are more effective. Only one study directly compared NRT against another pharmacotherapy (bupropion) and found that the latter was significantly more effective either alone or used in combination with nicotine patch than if nicotine patch was used alone. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: All of the commercially available forms of NRT (nicotine gum, transdermal patch, and in some countries, the nicotine nasal spray, nicotine inhaler and nicotine sublingual tablets) are effective as part of a strategy to promote smoking cessation. They increase quit rates approximately 1.5 to 2 fold regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the smoker. Since all the trials of NRT reported so far have included at least some form of brief advice to the smoker, this represents the minimum which should be offered in order to ensure its effectiveness. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. There is promising evidence that bupropion may be more effective than NRT (either alone or in combination). (ABSTRACT

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub2

Cites

225 of 225 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?

  • In the nicotine lozenge trial, active medication improved efficacy compared with placebo.

    “Table 9 shows the results from this study and clearly shows the lower placebo quit rates for high compared to low dependent smokers and the improved efficacy with the active medication.”

    From Tobacco addiction (2008) · cites this paper as [90]

  • In a nicotine lozenge trial, high dependent smokers had lower placebo quit rates than low dependent smokers.

    “Table 9 shows the results from this study and clearly shows the lower placebo quit rates for high compared to low dependent smokers and the improved efficacy with the active medication.”

    From Tobacco addiction (2008) · cites this paper as [90]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Silagy, C., Lancaster, T., Stead, L., Mant, D., & Fowler, G.
Affiliations
  • Monash Medical Centre (AU)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Primary Health Care (QA)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Published
2004-07-19
Volume
90
Issue
2
Pages
CD000146-CD000146
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub2
OpenAlex
W2463861392
Cited by
972
References
213
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 48
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (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
nicotine replacement therapy, smoking cessation, nicotine gum, nicotine patch, nicotine nasal spray, nicotine inhaler, smoking abstinence, nicotine dependence, nicotine withdrawal symptoms, tobacco control, tobacco advertising restrictions, tobacco control legislation, tobacco control enforcement
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Administration, Cutaneous, Humans, Nicotine, 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