Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT): Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created New Page)
 
Line 23: Line 23:
Over half of the smokers with misperceptions reported that they would be more likely to use NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) to help them quit smoking if they were exposed to information correcting their concerns
Over half of the smokers with misperceptions reported that they would be more likely to use NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) to help them quit smoking if they were exposed to information correcting their concerns


==2006: Nicotine replacement therapy for long‐term smoking cessation: a meta‐analysis==
==2006: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563611/ Nicotine replacement therapy for long‐term smoking cessation: a meta‐analysis]==
This review focused on the long‐term impact of the current “one‐shot” therapeutic approach to treatment with NRT and found significant but modest effects. Although such treatment is still likely to be highly cost‐effective in terms of life‐years gained, the substantial amount of relapse observed even after a year of abstinence, and the fact that more than 90% of those treated do not succeed, questions whether this therapeutic approach is the most appropriate. Our results support the notion that nicotine addiction, like others, should be viewed as a chronic recurring disease of the brain, and that its treatment should probably be closer to the long‐term treatment of other chronic diseases, such as hypertension, than that used for acute diseases like infections. For many smokers at least, a chronic, prolonged treatment is probably necessary and should include the encouragement to make repeated quit attempts accompanied with multiple treatment episodes over many years. To date, only one study has thoroughly investigated the effect of prolonged treatment on health outcomes. The results in terms of reducing smoking and morbidity have been encouraging
*Results after only 6–12 months of follow‐up, as used in existing reviews and treatment guidelines, will overestimate the lifetime benefit and cost‐efficacy of NRT by about 30%. The majority of relapse after 12 months occurs within the first or second year.
*This review focused on the long‐term impact of the current “one‐shot” therapeutic approach to treatment with NRT and found significant but modest effects. Although such treatment is still likely to be highly cost‐effective in terms of life‐years gained, the substantial amount of relapse observed even after a year of abstinence, and the fact that more than 90% of those treated do not succeed, questions whether this therapeutic approach is the most appropriate. Our results support the notion that nicotine addiction, like others, should be viewed as a chronic recurring disease of the brain, and that its treatment should probably be closer to the long‐term treatment of other chronic diseases, such as hypertension, than that used for acute diseases like infections. For many smokers at least, a chronic, prolonged treatment is probably necessary and should include the encouragement to make repeated quit attempts accompanied with multiple treatment episodes over many years. To date, only one study has thoroughly investigated the effect of prolonged treatment on health outcomes. The results in terms of reducing smoking and morbidity have been encouraging.
*[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563611/pdf/280.pdf PDF Version]
*Citation: Etter JF, Stapleton JA. Nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: a meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2006;15(4):280-285. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.015487
*Acknowledgements: Financial Support: None. Authors have done work / research on smoking cessation and on nicotine replacement therapies, some of which were paid in the past by NRT manufacturers.


==2001: The nicotine inhaler: clinical pharmacokinetics and comparison with other nicotine treatments==
==2001: The nicotine inhaler: clinical pharmacokinetics and comparison with other nicotine treatments==