Cited by 41Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study

Fifty-two-week continuous abstinence rates of smokers being treated with varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy: Comparison of varenicline and NRT

Kralikova, Eva, Kmetova, Alexandra, Stepankova, Lenka, Zvolska, Kamila, Davis, Rachel, West, Robert·2013·Addiction

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cross-study comparisons of effect sizes suggest that varenicline is more effective than nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in aiding smoking cessation, but evidence from direct comparisons is limited. This study compared biochemically verified 52-week sustained abstinence rates in smokers attending the same clinical service according to whether they used varenicline or NRT in their quit attempt. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 855 smokers attending a large smoking cessation clinic who used their choice of NRT product or varenicline in their quit attempt. All received the same behavioural support programme and chose their medication option (n = 519 varenicline; n = 336 NRT). The primary outcome measure was self-report of 52 weeks' abstinence following the target quit date confirmed by expired air carbon monoxide concentration. Baseline measures included socio-demographic variables, mental health diagnoses, measures of smoking, cigarette dependence and past use of NRT or varenicline. RESULTS: The 52-week abstinence rates were 42.8% versus 31.0% in those using varenicline versus NRT, respectively (P < 0.001). After adjusting for all baseline variables, the odds of remaining abstinent for 52 weeks were 2.03 (95% CI 1.46-2.82), P < 0.001 times higher in those using varenicline than those using NRT. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers in the same behavioural support programme who use varenicline appear to have a greater probability of achieving long-term abstinence than those using their choice of nicotine replacement therapy options, even after adjusting for potentially confounding smoker characteristics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.12219

Cites

26 of 26 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kralikova, E., Kmetova, A., Stepankova, L., Zvolska, K., Davis, R., & West, R.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
West, Robert
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-05-13
Volume
108
Issue
8
Pages
1497-1502
ISSN
0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1816201445
Cited by
41
References
26
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (14135)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Keywords
varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy, smoking cessation, sustained abstinence, long-term abstinence, nicotine dependence, behavioral support, expired carbon monoxide, drug selection
MeSH terms
Varenicline, Smoking Prevention, Benzazepines, Breath Tests, Carbon Monoxide, Drug Administration Routes, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Quinoxalines, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Nicotinic Agonists, Tobacco Use Cessation Devices

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