Background The efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation among pregnant smokers has not yet been established.Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation among pregnant smokers.Search strategy A search was made of PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL in June 2011.Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasiRCTs and retrospective or prospective controlled studies were included.Data collection and analysis The main analyses were designed to examine the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation among pregnant smokers based on the longest follow-up data available and from data obtained at the latest available time-point in pregnancy in each study.Main results Of 74 articles identified from the databases, seven studies (five RCTs, one quasi-RCT and one prospective study) involving a total of 1386 pregnant smokers, 732 in the intervention groups and 654 in the control groups, were included in the final analyses. In a fixed-effects meta-analysis of all seven studies based on the longest follow-up data available, pharmacotherapy had a significant effect on smoking cessation (relative risk [RR] 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-2.44). Subgroup meta-analysis by type of study design also showed similar findings for RCTs (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.04-2.09) and other types of studies (RR 3.25;). The abstinence rate at late pregnancy in the intervention ranged from 7 to 22.6% (mean abstinence rate 13.0%; 95% CI 10.9-15.2%). A few minor adverse effects and serious adverse effects were reported in several studies.Author's conclusions This study indicates that there may be clinical evidence to support the use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation among pregnant smokers. Further RCTs are needed.
We appreciate the letter of Coleman et al. 1 in response to our report in BJOG.2 First, we are very sorry that we did not include in our review Coleman et al.'s review, 3 which was published in early 2011. We should have searched and reviewed previous literature on this issue more thoroughly.Second, we agree with them that there is 'insufficient' evidence to support the use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation in pregnant smokers because no significant efficacy was found in the three placebo-controlled trials, whereas a significant efficacy was found only in the four non placebocontrolled trials. We already described this in the limitations section of the Discussion. We concluded that there 'may' be clinical evidence to support the use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation among pregnant smokers.Third, when we reviewed their previous meta-analysis and then compared it with ours, we found that Coleman et al. used a random-effects model in all the analyses, whereas we used both fixed-effects and random-effects models according to the results of the heterogeneity test (i.e. fixed-effects model for data showing less heterogeneity and random-effects model for data showing heterogeneity). Coleman et al. reported the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for smoking cessation in later pregnancy after using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was 1.63 (0.85-3.14) using a random-effects model. When we performed a 'fixed-effects' meta-analysis using data shown in Figure 2 of Coleman et al.'s review (I 2 = 45%; in our review, when I 2 is <50%, we used a fixed-effects model), NRT was efficacious (pooled RR, 1.47; 95% CI 1.05-2.05; I 2 = 44.9%). Hence, the main reason why the findings and conclusions are not consistent between the two metaanalyses, although similar data were used, is that different models were used, respectively. If Coleman et al. applied a fixed-effects model when I 2 is <50%, their conclusion would also be that NRT is efficacious, as in our review.Last, the remaining issue would be that we should present more conservative findings when the pooled effect sizes are different in the meta-analyses by using between fixed-effects and random-effects models in case of less heterogeneity. We, basically, think that using a fixed-effects model is reasonable although the findings are different between the two models if the heterogeneity test shows less heterogeneity (i.e. I 2 < 50%). However, we want to hear other experts' opinions on this issue. &
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.