A randomised-controlled pilot study using nicotine patches with pregnant women

Adherence to nicotine replacement therapy among pregnant smokers

“…The present study is in agreement with another study showing that intermittent patch use is common and that most women do not use the patch as directed ( Hotham, Gilbert, & Atkinson, 2006 ). Interestingly, we found that most women discontinued NRT because they wanted to smoke, suggesting that cravings were not relieved effectively.…”

Nicotine Replacement and Behavioral Therapy for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy

“…In addition, efficacy of CBT+NRT was nearly threefold over CBT-only; this effect is greater than what has been found in the general population.30 These results confirm findings from a small pilot study in which three of 20 women versus zero of 20 women quit smoking in the NRT patch and control arms, respectively. 38 The results from Baby Steps are encouraging given the dearth of effective interventions for smoking cessation during pregnancy.…”

“…34,35 Previous randomized trials of NRT in pregnancy have shown reductions in smoking rates (5% absolute reduction) similar to other interventions. 25,[36][37][38] In one trial,37 NRT was used as part of a multimodal intervention along with CBT, so direct estimation of the effect of NRT alone was not possible. In two other trials,36, 38 adherence to the use of nicotine patches was low.…”

Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation among pregnant smokers: a meta‐analysis

“…Of those, three articles [21][22][23] were excluded for the following reasons: not a comparison study (n = 1); 21 a study not related to pharmacotherapy (n = 1); 22 a study sharing an identical population with the study included in this analysis (n = 1). 23 Seven studies [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] were included in the final analysis.…”

“…Also, in subgroup meta-analyses by type of study design, a significant effect on smoking cessation was found in both RCTs (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.04-2.09; I 2 = 20.9%; n = 5) and other studies (RR 3.25; 95% CI 1.65-6.39; I 2 = 0.0%; n = 2). In the five selected studies, Begg's funnel plot was asymmetrical, and Egger's test showed that P for bias was 0.036 ( Figure 3) (two 10,13 of the seven studies were excluded because of 'zero' cells in the 2 · 2 table). A contourenhanced funnel plot indicated that the 'missing' studies were in areas of statistical significance (in darker shaded areas).…”