Nicotine replacement therapy, professional therapy, snuff use and tobacco smoking: a study of smoking cessation strategies in southern Sweden

Objectives

The strategies used to support smoking cessation among quitters were investigated according to year of smoking cessation and sociodemographic characteristics.

Methods

The 2004 public health survey in Skåne, Sweden, is a cross‐sectional study. A total of 27 757 people aged 18–80 answered a postal questionnaire. The participation rate was 59%. Different strategies to support smoking cessation—that is, no therapy, nicotine replacement (NRT), professional therapy and snus (snuff) use, were investigated among quitters according to year of smoking cessation, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Results

14.9% of the men and 18.1% of the women were daily smokers. The prevalence of daily snus use was 19.5% among men but only 2.3% among women. Stratifying the data according to year of smoking cessation (1938–2004) revealed a significant increase in active smoking cessation strategies such as NRT, professional therapy and snus use. NRT was more common among women (23.6%) than men (14.8%) among smokers who quit in 2000–4, but snus use was more common among men (30.4% versus 8.7%). No replacement or other therapy at all was significantly more common among women (63.6%) than men (52.1%). People aged 35–80 years used more nicotine replacement than people aged 18–34, while men aged 18–34 used snus to quit smoking significantly more than men aged 55–80.

Conclusions

Snus is used commonly among men as a support for smoking cessation in Sweden. Women use pharmacological NRT to a greater extent, but this can probably not compensate for the much higher extent of snuff use as a cessation strategy among men.     

Use of nicotine replacement therapy to reduce or delay smoking but not to quit: prevalence and association with subsequent cessation efforts

Objective

To assess the prevalence of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use for purposes other than quitting smoking and examine the relation of this non‐standard NRT use (NSNRT) with subsequent smoking cessation efforts.

Design

A population based cohort study of adult smokers who were interviewed by telephone at baseline (2001–2) and at two year follow‐up. The association between NSNRT use to cut down on smoking or to delay smoking before baseline and cessation attempts and smoking outcomes at two year follow‐up was assessed using logistic regression to adjust for multiple potential confounding factors.

Setting

Massachusetts, USA.

Subjects

1712 adult smokers in Massachusetts who were selected using a random digit dial telephone survey.

Main outcome measures

Quit attempt in 12 months before follow‐up, NRT use at quit attempt in 12 months before follow‐up, smoking cessation by follow‐up, or 50% reduction in cigarettes smoked per day between baseline and follow‐up.

Results

18.7% of respondents reported ever having used NSNRT. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, there was no statistically significant association between past NSNRT use and quit attempts (OR_{cut down}  = 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.33; OR_delay  = 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.29), smoking cessation (OR_{cut down}  = 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.24; OR_delay  = 1.22, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.50) or 50% reduction in cigarettes smoked per day (OR_{cut down}  = 0.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.38; OR_delay  = 0.80, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.49) at follow‐up. Past use of NRT to cut down on cigarettes was associated with use of NRT at a follow‐up quit attempt (OR_{cut down}  = 2.28, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.47) but past use of NRT to delay smoking was not (OR_delay  = 1.25, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.34).

Conclusions

Use of NRT for reasons other than quitting smoking may be more common than was previously estimated. This population based survey finds no strong evidence that NRT use for purposes other than quitting smoking is either harmful or helpful.     

Role of snus in initiation and cessation of tobacco smoking in Sweden

Objective

To examine patterns of smoking and snus use and identify individual pathways of Swedish tobacco users in order to clarify whether snus use is associated with increased or decreased smoking.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of data from a cross‐sectional survey completed by 6752 adult Swedes in 2001–2 focusing on identifying tobacco use history by survey items on current and prior tobacco use and smoking initiation and cessation procedures.

Results

15% of the men and 19% of the women completing the survey were daily smokers. 21% of the men and 2% of the women were daily snus users. Almost all (91%) male daily smoking began before the age of 23 years, whereas initiation of daily snus use continued throughout the age range (33% of initiation after age 22). 20% of male primary snus users started daily smoking compared to 47% of non‐primary snus users. Thus, the odds of initiating daily smoking were significantly lower for men who had started using snus than for those who had not (odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.36). Among male primary smokers, 28% started secondary daily snus use and 73% did not. 88% of those secondary snus users had ceased daily smoking completely by the time of the survey as compared with 56% of those primary daily smokers who never became daily snus users (OR 5.7, 95% CI 4.9 to 8.1). Among men who made attempts to quit smoking, snus was the most commonly used cessation aid, being used by 24% on their latest quit attempt. Of those men who had used one single cessation aid 58% had used snus, as compared with 38% for all nicotine replacement therapy products together. Among men who used snus as a single aid, 66% succeeded in quitting completely, as compared with 47% of those using nicotine gum (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.7) or 32% for those using the nicotine patch (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.1 to 8.6). Women using snus as an aid were also significantly more likely to quit smoking successfully than those using nicotine patches or gum.

Conclusion

Use of snus in Sweden is associated with a reduced risk of becoming a daily smoker and an increased likelihood of stopping smoking.     

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapies for nicotine dependence in primary care settings: a multinational comparison

Objective

To estimate the incremental cost‐effectiveness of the first‐line pharmacotherapies (nicotine gum, patch, spray, inhaler, and bupropion) for smoking cessation across six Western countries—Canada, France, Spain, Switzerland, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

Design and study population

A Markov‐chain cohort model to simulate two cohorts of smokers: (1) a reference cohort given brief cessation counselling by a general practitioner (GP); (2) a treatment cohort given counselling plus pharmacotherapy. Effectiveness expressed as odds ratios for quitting associated with pharmacotherapies. Costs based on the additional physician time required and retail prices of the medications.

Interventions

Addition of each first‐line pharmacotherapy to GP cessation counselling.

Main outcome measures

Cost per life‐year saved associated with pharmacotherapies.

Results

The cost per life‐year saved for counselling only ranged from US$190 in Spain to $773 in the UK for men, and from $288 in Spain to $1168 in the UK for women. The incremental cost per life‐year saved for gum ranged from $2230 for men in Spain to $7643 for women in the US; for patch from $1758 for men in Spain to $5131 for women in the UK; for spray from $1935 for men in Spain to $7969 for women in the US; for inhaler from $3480 for men in Switzerland to $8700 for women in France; and for bupropion from $792 for men in Canada to $2922 for women in the US. In sensitivity analysis, changes in discount rate, treatment effectiveness, and natural quit rate had the strongest influences on cost‐effectiveness.

Conclusions

The cost‐effectiveness of the pharmacotherapies varied significantly across the six study countries, however, in each case, the results would be considered favourable as compared to other common preventive pharmacotherapies.     

Use of nicotine replacement therapy in socioeconomically deprived young smokers: a community-based pilot randomised controlled trial

Background

Smoking is common in young people, particularly in disadvantaged groups, and continued smoking has a major impact on quality and quantity of life. Although many young smokers want to stop smoking, little is known about the design and effectiveness of cessation services for them.

Objective

To determine whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) when combined with counselling is effective in young smokers in a deprived area of Nottingham, UK

Methods and subjects

We surveyed smoking prevalence and attitudes to smoking and quitting in young people accessing an open access youth project in a deprived area of Nottingham, and used the information gained to design a community based smoking cessation service incorporating a randomised controlled trial of nicotine patches against placebo given in association with individual behavioural support. We resurveyed smoking prevalence among project attendees after completing the pilot study.

Results

Of 264 young people surveyed (median age 14 years, range 11–21), 49% were regular smokers. A total of 98 young people were recruited and randomised to receive either active nicotine patches on a six week reducing dose regimen (49 participants), or placebo (49 participants). Adherence to therapy was low, the median duration being one week, and 63 participants did not attend any follow up. At four weeks, five subjects receiving active NRT and two receiving placebo were abstinent, and at 13 weeks none were. Adverse effects were more common in the active group but none were serious. Smoking prevalence among 246 youth project attendees surveyed after the trial was 44%.

Conclusions

This study suggests that NRT in this context is unlikely to be effective in young smokers, not least because of low adherence to therapy. It also suggests that young smokers want help with smoking cessation, but that establishing the efficacy of smoking cessation services for young people who need them most will be very difficult.     

Increased reach and effectiveness of a statewide tobacco quitline after the addition of access to free nicotine replacement therapy

Background

Tobacco users receiving behavioural and pharmacological assistance are more likely to quit. Although telephone quitlines provide population access to counselling, few offer pharmacotherapy.

Objective

To assess change in cessation rates and programme impact after the addition of free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to statewide quitline services.

Design, setting, participants

An observational study of cohorts of callers to the Minnesota QUITPLAN^SM Helpline before (n  =  380) and after (n  =  373) the addition of access to free NRT.

Intervention

Mailing of NRT (patch or gum) to callers enrolling in multi‐session counselling.

Main outcome measure

Thirty‐day abstinence six months after programme registration.

Results

The number of callers increased from 155 (SD 75) to 679 (180) per month pre‐NRT to post‐NRT (difference 524, 95% confidence interval (CI) 323 to 725). Post‐NRT, the proportion of callers enrolling in multi‐session counselling (23.4% v 90.1%, difference 66.6%, 95% CI 60.8% to 71.6%) and using pharmacotherapy (46.8% v 86.8%, difference 40.0%, 95% CI 31.3% to 47.9%) increased. Thirty‐day abstinence at six months increased from 10.0% pre‐NRT to 18.2% post‐NRT (difference 8.2%, 95% CI 3.1% to 13.4%). Post‐NRT the average number of new ex‐smokers per month among registrants increased from 15.5 to 123.6 (difference 108.1, 95% CI 61.1 to 155.0). The cost per quit pre‐NRT was $1362 (SD $207). The cost per quit post‐NRT was $1934 ($215) suggesting a possible increase in cost per quit (difference $572, 95% CI −$12 to $1157).

Conclusion

The addition of free NRT to a state quitline is followed by increases in participation and abstinence rates resulting in an eightfold increase in programme impact. These findings support the addition of access to pharmacological therapy as part of state quitline services.     

Randomised trial investigating effect of a novel nicotine delivery device (Eclipse) and a nicotine oral inhaler on smoking behaviour, nicotine and carbon monoxide exposure, and motivation to quit

OBJECTIVE: To monitor the effect of a novel nicotine delivery device that may produce fewer carcinogens (Eclipse) on cigarette smoking, carbon monoxide and nicotine concentrations, and motivation to give up smoking. The smoker's own brand of cigarette and a nicotine replacement product (Nicotrol inhaler) were used as comparisons. DESIGN: After baseline data were recorded, smokers were randomised to either Eclipse or inhaler for two weeks and then switched to the other product for another two weeks. Thereafter a second baseline was obtained. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty smokers were included and data are reported for the 40 with complete data sets. The smokers were not trying to quit but were interested in trying a new product to reduce their risk. They visited a smoking clinic 10 times during the six week period of the trial. INTERVENTION: No counselling to aid reduction by Eclipse or inhaler was given. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At each visit smoking status and carbon monoxide concentrations were recorded. In half of the visits withdrawal symptoms, attitudes towards smoking, heart rate, and blood nicotine concentrations were also recorded. RESULTS: Eclipse use decreased the number of cigarettes smoked per day (cpd) from 19.1 cpd at baseline to 2.1 cpd (p < 0.001), but increased carbon monoxide concentrations in parts per million (ppm) from 21.0 ppm to 33.0 ppm (p < 0.001). A similar decrease in cigarettes smoked per day was seen with the Nicotrol inhaler, from 19.1 cpd to 4.8 cpd (p < 0.001), but carbon monoxide decreased from 21.0 ppm to 12.7 ppm (p < 0.001). The blood nicotine concentration remained fairly stable with Eclipse, increasing slightly from 16.8 ng/ml to 18.0 ng/ml, while for the inhaler a significant drop was noted, from 16.8 ng/ml to 12. 2 ng/ml (p < 0.002). Craving and withdrawal did not increase with Eclipse. Few significant adverse events occurred with Eclipse. CONCLUSIONS: Eclipse can dramatically decrease cigarette consumption without causing withdrawal symptoms or decreases in nicotine concentrations or motivation to quit altogether. Unlike the inhaler, Eclipse produces an increase in carbon monoxide concentration. Thus Eclipse may not be a safer cigarette.     

Effects of preoperative smoking cessation on the incidence and risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications in adult smokers: a systematic review

Objectives

To establish the effect of preoperative smoking cessation on the risk of postoperative complications, and to identify the effect of the timing of preoperative cessation.

Data sources

The Cochrane Library Database, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Medline, and CINAHL databases were searched, using the terms: “smoking”, “smoking‐cessation”, “tobacco‐use”, “tobacco‐abstinence”, “cigarett$”, “complication$”, “postoperative‐complication$”, “preoperative”, “perioperative” and “surg$”. Further articles were obtained from reference lists. The search was limited to articles on adults, written in English and published up to November 2005.

Study selection

Prospective cohort designs exploring the effects of preoperative smoking cessation on postoperative complications were included. Two reviewers independently scanned abstracts of relevant articles to determine eligibility. Lack of agreement was resolved through discussion and consensus. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria.

Data extraction

Methodological quality was assessed by both reviewers, exploring validation of smoking status, clear definition of the period of smoking cessation, control for confounding variables and length of follow‐up.

Data synthesis

Only four of the studies specified the exact period of smoking cessation, with six studies specifying the length of the follow‐up period. Five studies revealed a lower risk or incidence of postoperative complications in past smokers than current smokers or reported that there was no significant difference between past smokers and non‐smokers.

Conclusions

Longer periods of smoking cessation appear to be more effective in reducing the incidence/risk of postoperative complications; there was no increased risk in postoperative complications from short term cessation. An optimal period of preoperative smoking cessation could not be identified from the available evidence.     

Observed smoking in cars: a method and differences by socioeconomic area

Objectives

To establish a reproducible method to estimate he point prevalence of smoking and second‐hand smoke (SHS) exposure in cars, and to compare this prevalence between two areas of contrasting socioeconomic status.

Method

A method involving two teams of observers was developed and evaluated. It involved observing 16 055 cars in Wellington, New Zealand. Two of the observation sites represented a high and a low area of deprivation (based on a neighbourhood deprivation index) and three were in the central city.

Results

A 4.1% point prevalence of smoking in cars was observed (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8% to 4.4%). There was a higher prevalence of smoking in cars in the high deprivation area relative to the other sites, and particularly compared to the low deprivation area (rate ratio relative to the latter 3.2, 95% CI 2.6 to 4.0). Of cars with smoking, 23.7% had other occupants being exposed to SHS. Cars with smoking and other occupants were significantly more likely to have a window open (especially if the smoker was not the driver). The observation method developed was practical, and inter‐observer agreement was high (κ value for the “smoking seen in car” category 0.95).

Conclusions

Observational studies can be an effective way of investigating smoking in cars. The data from this survey suggest that smoking in cars occurs at a higher rate in relatively deprived populations and hence may contribute to health inequalities. Fortunately, there are a number of policy options for reducing SHS exposure in cars including mass media campaigns and laws for smoke‐free cars.     

Costs and benefits of smoking cessation aids: making a case for public reimbursement of nicotine replacement therapy in Australia

Background

Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in Australia and other developed countries. Of the pharmacological aids that are available for smoking cessation, bupropion (Zyban SR) is eligible for public reimbursement on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), whereas nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is not. Information on the cost‐effectiveness and financial impact of public reimbursement of these strategies can better inform debate about their inclusion or exclusion in public reimbursement schemes.

Objective

To estimate the cost‐effectiveness of bupropion and NRT, and the potential financial impact of public reimbursement of NRT in Australia.

Design

A cost‐effectiveness analysis using a deterministic Markov model, and cost per disability‐adjusted life year (DALY) averted over a lifetime as the outcome measure.

Population

Current smokers, motivated to quit, in Australia in 2000.

Interventions

(1) NRT; (2) bupropion; and (3) a combined strategy using bupropion as the first‐line treatment and NRT in those who fail to quit smoking or have adverse reactions to bupropion.

Results

Quitting smoking can increase life expectancy of current smokers by 1–7.6 years depending on age at cessation and sex. Providing bupropion to current smokers who are motivated to quit would cost A$7900 (95% uncertainty interval A$6000 to A$10 500) for each DALY averted; NRT patches would cost A$17 000 (A$9000 to A$28 000) for each DALY averted, with similar results even if used as a second‐line treatment following initial failure to quit using bupropion. If 6% of current smokers were to use NRT following inclusion on the PBS, this would result in an annual cost of A$40–110 million to the PBS depending on the listed price.

Conclusions

Compared with other drugs included on the PBS, bupropion and NRT are both highly cost‐effective smoking cessation interventions, and including NRT on the PBS would have a moderate financial impact. Given the sizeable health burden of smoking, and the large individual benefits of quitting smoking, increasing the availability of alternative aids and uptake of these strategies through public reimbursement would be a positive and rational step towards further reducing tobacco‐related disease burden in Australia and other countries where NRT is currently not subsidised.Tobacco smoking is the largest preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in Australia and other developed countries. Despite projected declines in tobacco‐related diseases in line with decreasing prevalence, tobacco is still expected to be among the leading causes of disease burden in 2016.¹ Worldwide, it is the second highest cause of death and fourth highest cause of disease burden.Effective policies to control tobacco use are crucial. Although preventing individuals from starting smoking is an important aim of tobacco control, cessation in current smokers is also critical. As nicotine is highly addictive, smokers often require assistance to maintain abstinence. Modestly effective cessation aids are available, including pharmacological agents, such as bupropion (Zyban SR) and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).^2,3Australia has implemented many strong tobacco control policies. The retail price of tobacco in Australia is among the top three worldwide.⁴ Advertising and promoting tobacco products has been totally banned, pictorial pack warnings have recently been implemented, opportunities to smoke cigarettes in public places are severely limited and there is legislation in place forcing an upcoming ban of smoking in bars and hotels.^5,6,7 Despite these measures, nearly one in five Australian adults still smoke daily, indicating the need for further strategies to encourage cessation.⁸In 1995, the Australian government rejected a recommendation by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to include NRT on the public reimbursement scheme—the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).⁹ By contrast, bupropion was made available on the PBS in February 2001.¹⁰ The continued exclusion of NRT and inclusion of bupropion may or may not be a rational decision. Valid and comparable information on the cost‐effectiveness and financial implications of including these interventions on the PBS are important inputs into this debate.The cost‐effectiveness of both NRT and bupropion has been studied previously.² A lack of consistency in the methods of these studies, however, makes comparisons difficult, and the context‐specific nature of inputs into cost‐effectiveness analyses such as disease outcomes means that these results may not be applicable to the Australian setting.^2,11 This study aims to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of NRT and bupropion in the Australian context, as well as the potential financial impact of including NRT on the PBS.     

Tobacco cessation skills certification in Arizona: application of a state wide, community based model for diffusion of evidence based practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and preliminary results from a community based certification model for training in tobacco cessation skills in Arizona. DESIGN: A programme evaluation using both quantitative pre-post measures and qualitative methods. SETTING: Arizona's comprehensive tobacco control programme of state funded, community based local projects and their community partners providing tobacco treatment services for geographically, socioeconomically, and ethnically diverse communities. INTERVENTION: A three tiered model of skills based training emphasising Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines, and utilising a training of trainers approach to build community capacity. Certification roles addressed basic tobacco cessation skills, tobacco cessation specialist, and tobacco treatment services manager. PARTICIPANTS: Initial target audience was community based local project personnel and their community partners, with later adoption by community organisations unaffiliated with local projects, and the general public. MAIN EVALUATION MEASURES: Process measures: participant satisfaction, knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy. Outcome: participant demographics, community organisations represented, post-training, cessation related activities. RESULTS: During the model's implementation year, 1075 participants attended certification training, 947 participants received basic skills certificates and 82 received specialist certificates. Pre, post, and three month measures of self efficacy showed significant and durable increases. Analysis of participant characteristics demonstrated broad community representation. At post-training follow up, 80.9% of basic skills trainees had performed at least one brief intervention and 74.8% had made a referral to intensive services. Among cessation specialists, 48.8% were delivering intensive services and 69.5% were teaching basic skills classes. CONCLUSIONS: Initial experience with Arizona's state wide, community based model for certification of tobacco cessation skills training suggests this model may be a promising method for broad, population based diffusion of evidence based tobacco cessation guidelines.     

A group randomised trial of two methods for disseminating a smoking cessation programme to public antenatal clinics: effects on patient outcomes

Objective

To assess the differential effectiveness of two methods of disseminating a smoking cessation programme to public hospital antenatal clinics.

Design

Group randomised trial.

Setting

22 antenatal clinics in New South Wales, Australia.

Intervention

Clinics were allocated to a simple dissemination (SD) condition (11 clinics) which received a mail‐out of programme resources or to an intensive dissemination (ID) condition (11 clinics) which included the mail‐out plus feedback, training, and ongoing support with midwife facilitator.

Main outcome measures

Independent cross sectional surveys of women on a second or subsequent visit undertaken pre‐dissemination and 18 months after dissemination. Outcomes were: (1) levels of smoking status assessment by clinic staff; (2) proportion of women identifying as having been smokers at their first visit who reported receiving cessation advice; (3) proportion of these women who had quit (self report and expired air carbon monoxide (CO)); and (4) smoking prevalence among all women (self report and CO).

Subjects

5849 women pre‐dissemination (2374 SD, 3475 ID) and weighted sample of 5145 women post‐dissemination (2302 SD, 2843 ID).

Results

There were no significant differences between the groups on change on any outcome. Change in either group was minimal. In the post‐dissemination survey, the cessation proportions were 6.4% (SD) and 10.5% (ID).

Conclusions

Relatively modest strategies for encouraging incorporation of smoking cessation activities into antenatal care were not effective in the long term. Alternative strategies should be implemented and evaluated. The findings reinforce the importance of a whole population approach to tobacco control.