Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Volume 107, Issue 2 , Pages 237-243, 1 March 2010

Nicotine patch vs. nicotine lozenge for smoking cessation: An effectiveness trial coordinated by the Community Clinical Oncology Program

  • Robert A. Schnoll

      Affiliations

    • Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, 4th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 215 746 7143; fax: +1 215 746 7140.
  • ,
  • Elisa Martinez

      Affiliations

    • Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, 4th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States
  • ,
  • Kristina L. Tatum

      Affiliations

    • Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States
  • ,
  • Marcella Glass

      Affiliations

    • Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States
  • ,
  • Albert Bernath

      Affiliations

    • Geisinger Medical Center, 100 North Academy Road, Danville, PA 17822, United States
  • ,
  • Daron Ferris

      Affiliations

    • Department of Family Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Georgia, 1120 15th St, HH-105, Augusta, GA 30912, United States
  • ,
  • Patrick Reynolds

      Affiliations

    • Mt. Sinai Medical Center, 4306 Alton Road, Mt. Sinai CCC, Miami Beach, FL 33140, United States

Received 27 August 2009; received in revised form 2 November 2009; accepted 6 November 2009.

Abstract 

Background

Nicotine replacement therapies are efficacious for treating nicotine dependence. However, limited data exist on benefits of different NRTs and predictors of treatment outcome. This study compared the effectiveness of transdermal nicotine vs. nicotine lozenge for smoking cessation and identified predictors of treatment response.

Methods

A randomized, open-label effectiveness trial was conducted at 12 medical sites participating in the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program. The sample consisted of 642 treatment-seeking smokers randomized to 12 weeks of transdermal nicotine or nicotine lozenge.

Results

Smoker characteristics were assessed at baseline, and 24-h point prevalence abstinence confirmed with breath carbon monoxide (CO) was evaluated at end of treatment (EOT) and at a 6-month follow-up. There was a trend for higher quit rates for transdermal nicotine vs. nicotine lozenge at EOT (24.3% vs. 18.7%, p=.10) and 6 months (15.6% vs. 10.9%, p=.10). A logistic regression model of EOT quit rates showed smokers who preferred transdermal nicotine, were not reactive to smoking cues, and did not use nicotine to alleviate distress or stimulate cognitive function had higher quit rates on transdermal nicotine. A logistic regression model of 6-month quit rates showed smokers who preferred transdermal nicotine had higher quit rates on transdermal nicotine, and smokers who used nicotine to alleviate distress or stimulate cognitive processes had lower quit rates on nicotine lozenge.

Conclusions

Transdermal nicotine may be more effective than nicotine lozenge for smokers who prefer transdermal nicotine and do not smoke to alleviate emotional distress or stimulate cognitive function.

Keywords: Smoking cessation, Nicotine replacement therapy, Nicotine dependence, Moderators

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0376-8716(09)00408-6

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.11.001

Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Volume 107, Issue 2 , Pages 237-243, 1 March 2010