RESPONSE TO GREENE ET AL.: INDUSTRY FUNDING AND PLACEBO QUIT RATE IN CLINICAL TRIALS OF NICOTINE REPLACEMENT THERAPY: A COMMENTARY ON ETTER ET AL. (2007)

IntroductionNicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has proven effective for smoking cessation in clinical trials, however it was found less effective in population-based studies, potentially due to inconsistent or incorrect use of NRT. The aim of this paper is to describe a systematic review protocol to evaluate level of adherence to NRT; the discrepancy of adherence to NRT in clinical and population-based studies and degree of association between level of adherence and success of smoking cessation.Methods and analysisLiterature search will use five databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO). Studies will be appraised for methodological quality using National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool. To reduce heterogeneity, we will analyse clinical trials and population-based studies separately; pooled analyses will be done among studies that used similar measurements. Heterogeneity of studies will be assessed by Higgins’ I2 statistical test. When studies are adequately homogeneous, results will be pooled using random-effects model with proportion and ORs with 95% CIs and p values for each outcome. We will explain sources of heterogeneity by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots and Egger’s regression asymmetry test with p<0.05 will be used as a cut-off point to affirm presence of statistically significant publication bias. Statistical analyses will be carried out using Stata V.16 software. Only studies reporting a valid strategy to control for reverse causality will be included.DiscussionThis review will provide evidence to support the importance of adherence on rate of smoking cessation and level of adherence to NRT. The findings will be used to inform smoking cessation interventions, researchers and policymakers.Ethics and disseminationAs a systematic literature review, this protocol does not require ethics approval. Research outcomes will be presented at relevant conferences and findings will be published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020176749.

Download Full-text

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Different Lengths of Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2013/961751 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 2013 ◽

pp. 1-9 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Abu S. Abdullah ◽

Anthony J. Hedley ◽

Sophia S. C. Chan ◽

Tai-Hing Lam

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Smoking Cessation ◽

Replacement Therapy ◽

Nicotine Replacement Therapy ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Point Prevalence ◽

Nicotine Replacement ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Quit Rate

This study examined if 2-week free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) would be more effective than 1-week free NRT to help smokers quit smoking at 6 and 12 months. In a single-blinded randomized controlled trial design, 562 Chinese smokers who attended a smoking cessation clinic in Hong Kong, China, were randomly allocated into two groups (A1 and A2): A1 (n=284) received behavioural counselling with free NRT for 1 week; A2 (n=278) received similar counselling with free NRT for 2 weeks. All subjects received printed self-help materials to support their quitting efforts. A structured questionnaire was used for data collection, including pattern of NRT use and self-reported 7-day point prevalence quit rate at 6 months and 12 months. Among the participants, the mean number of cigarettes smoked per day was 18.8 (SD=10.9). By intention-to-treat analysis, 7-day point prevalence quit rates were not significantly different between A1 and A2 groups at 6-month (27.5% versus 27.3%;P=0.97) and 12-month (21.1% versus 21.2%;P=0.98) followup. The findings suggest that two-week free NRT was not more effective than 1-week free NRT to increase smoking cessation rate among Chinese smokers.

Download Full-text