Cited by 344Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study

Varenicline versus transdermal nicotine patch for smoking cessation: results from a randomised open-label trial

Open access
Aubin, H-J, Bobak, A, Britton, J R, Oncken, C, Billing, C B, Gong, J, Williams, K E, Reeves, K R·2008·Thorax

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Varenicline, a new treatment for smoking cessation, has demonstrated significantly greater efficacy over placebo and sustained release bupropion (bupropion SR). A study was undertaken to compare a 12-week standard regimen of varenicline with a 10-week standard regimen of transdermal nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation. METHODS: In this 52-week, open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial conducted in Belgium, France, The Netherlands, UK and USA, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive varenicline uptitrated to 1 mg twice daily for 12 weeks or transdermal NRT (21 mg/day reducing to 7 mg/day) for 10 weeks. Non-treatment follow-up continued to week 52. The primary outcome was the biochemically confirmed (exhaled carbon monoxide < or = 10 ppm) self-reported continuous abstinence rate (CAR) for the last 4 weeks of the treatment period in participants who had taken at least one dose of treatment. Secondary outcomes included CAR from the last 4 weeks of treatment through weeks 24 and 52, and measures of craving, withdrawal and smoking satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 376 and 370 participants assigned to varenicline and NRT, respectively, were eligible for analysis. The CAR for the last 4 weeks of treatment was significantly greater for varenicline (55.9%) than NRT (43.2%; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.28, p<0.001). The week 52 CAR (NRT, weeks 8-52; varenicline, weeks 9-52) was 26.1% for varenicline and 20.3% for NRT (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.99, p = 0.056). Varenicline significantly reduced craving (p<0.001), withdrawal symptoms (p<0.001) and smoking satisfaction (p<0.001) compared with NRT. The most frequent adverse event was nausea (varenicline, 37.2%; NRT, 9.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this trial established that abstinence from smoking was greater and craving, withdrawal symptoms and smoking satisfaction were less at the end of treatment with varenicline than with transdermal NRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00143325.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/thx.2007.090647

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Two open-label randomized controlled trials were unable to confirm significant improvements with varenicline over NRT in continuous abstinence at 52 weeks following short-term treatment.

    “Two open label, randomized controlled trial were unable to confirm significant improvements with varenicline over NRT in continuous abstinence rates at 52 weeks following short term treatment [213, 242, 243].”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [242]

  • The 52-week abstinence rate for NRT was 20.4%, higher than most previously reported rates, while varenicline maintained the usual reported rate (26.1%).

    “the 52 week abstinence rate for NRT was found to be 20.4%, higher than most previously reported rates, while varenicline maintained the usual reported rate (26.1%) [242].”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [242]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aubin, H.-J., Bobak, A., Britton, J. R., Oncken, C., Billing, C. B., Gong, J., Williams, K. E., & Reeves, K. R.
Affiliations
  • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • UConn Health (US)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Aubin, H-J
Venue
Thorax
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-08-01
Volume
63
Issue
8
Pages
717-724
ISSN
0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129372385
Cited by
344
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 36
FWCI
26.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Thorax (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
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 patch, smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy, continuous abstinence rate, nicotine craving, withdrawal symptoms, smoking satisfaction, nicotine dependence, adverse events, nausea, exhaled carbon monoxide, long-term follow-up, relapse after treatment discontinuation
MeSH terms
Varenicline, Smoking Prevention, Administration, Cutaneous, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Benzazepines, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nicotine, Patient Compliance, Quinoxalines, Reinforcement, Psychology, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Nicotinic Agonists

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