Pre‐cessation nicotine replacement therapy: pragmatic randomized trial

Bullen, Chris; Howe, Colin; Lin, Ruey-Bin; Grigg, Michele; Laugesen, Murray; McRobbie, Hayden; Glover, Marewa; Walker, Natalie; Wallace-Bell, Mark; Whittaker, Robyn; Rodgers, Anthony

doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02989.x

Cited by 52 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some studies have suggested using NRT or varenicline for several weeks prior to quitting in order to become used to the medication (i.e., pretreatment) increases quit rates (Shiffman & Ferguson, 2008), and increases efficacy (IA), this has not always been replicated (Bullen et al, 2010;Etter, Huguelet, Perneger, & Cornuz, 2009). …”

Section: Discuss Medication Optionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

An updated algorithm for choosing among smoking cessation treatments

Hughes

2013

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discuss Medication Optionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

An updated algorithm for choosing among smoking cessation treatments

Hughes

2013

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Une méta-analyse d'études sur la prise de traitements en préparation à l'arrêt a mis évidence une réduction du nombre de cigarettes fumées quotidiennement et dans certaines études une réduction du CO expiré également, même si les fumeurs n'étaient pas initialement dans une démarche de réduction. En revanche, le bénéfice de cette préparation à l'arrêt sur le sevrage n'est pour l'instant que suggéré car l'on observe une absence d'effet significatif liée à la taille des échantillons participant aux études [26].…”

Section: Réduction Des Risquesunclassified

Tabagisme en France : état des connaissances pour une prise en charge efficace par les médecins

Faou

Baha

2012

La Presse Médicale

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Another metaanalysis found that starting a nicotine patch treatment a few weeks before quitting almost doubled the odds of quitting, compared with quitting abruptly and starting the patch on the quit date (Shiffman and Ferguson, 2008). However, three recent studies found that pretreatment with the nicotine gum and lozenge did not increase the efficacy of nicotine therapy (Bullen et al, 2010;Etter et al, 2009;Hughes et al, 2010), and a meta-analysis found that nicotineaided reduction was as effective as abrupt cessation . Finally, in smokers not motivated to quit, two meta-analyses and a literature review found that smoking reduction treatments increased the odds of future cessation (Hughes and Carpenter, 2006;Moore et al, 2009;Stead and Lancaster, 2007 …”

Section: Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing abrupt and gradual smoking cessation: A randomized trial

Etter

2011

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. Author's personal copy Drug and Alcohol Dependence 118 (2011) 360-365 Contents lists Participants: Smokers with no strong preference for abrupt or gradual quitting were randomly assigned to quitting immediately (n = 472), or to gradually reducing their cigarette consumption over 2 weeks and then quit (n = 502). Smokers who strongly preferred to quit abruptly were instructed to do so immediately (n = 2456), those who strongly preferred gradual were instructed to reduce their cigarette consumption over 2 weeks, then quit (n = 1801). Follow-up was conducted 4 weeks after target quit dates. Findings: Those who preferred abrupt quitting were the most motivated to quit and the most confident in their ability to quit. At follow-up, quit rates were 16% in those who preferred abrupt cessation, 7% in those who preferred gradual cessation and 9% in those who had no preference (p < 0.001). In the latter group, quit rates were equal for those randomized to abrupt or gradual (9%, p = 0.97). In those who expressed a strong preference for either method, there were interactions between quitting method, motivation to quit and confidence in ability to quit: those who had low levels of motivation or low levels of confidence were more likely to quit at follow-up if they preferred and used abrupt rather than gradual. Conclusions: In those who had no strong preference for either method, abrupt and gradual produced similar results. Those who preferred and used the abrupt method were more likely to quit than those who preferred and used the gradual method, in particular when they had low motivation and confidence.

show abstract

Pre‐cessation nicotine replacement therapy: pragmatic randomized trial

Cited by 52 publications

References 24 publications

An updated algorithm for choosing among smoking cessation treatments

An updated algorithm for choosing among smoking cessation treatments

Tabagisme en France : état des connaissances pour une prise en charge efficace par les médecins

Comparing abrupt and gradual smoking cessation: A randomized trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About