Hartmann-Boyce Jamie, Chepkin Samantha C, Ye Weiyu, Bullen Chris, Lancaster Tim
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 6GG.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 31;5(5):CD000146. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub5.
Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.
To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.
Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.
Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.
We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.
尼古丁替代疗法(NRT)旨在暂时替代香烟中的大部分尼古丁,以降低吸烟动机和尼古丁戒断症状,从而缓解从吸烟到完全戒烟的转变。
与安慰剂或“无NRT”干预措施相比,确定尼古丁替代疗法(NRT),包括口香糖、透皮贴剂、鼻喷雾剂以及吸入和口服制剂,实现长期戒烟的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了Cochrane烟草成瘾小组试验注册库,以查找标题、摘要或关键词中提及“NRT”或任何类型尼古丁替代疗法的论文。最近一次检索日期为2017年7月。
针对有戒烟意愿者开展的随机试验,将NRT与安慰剂或不治疗进行比较。我们排除了未报告戒烟率的试验,以及随访时间少于六个月的试验,但孕期试验除外(孕期试验随访时间少于六个月者,排除在主要分析之外)。我们记录了纳入和排除的将NRT与安慰剂进行比较的研究中的不良事件。比较不同类型、持续时间和剂量的NRT的研究,以及将NRT与其他药物疗法进行比较的研究,在单独的综述中涵盖。
筛选、数据提取和“偏倚风险”评估遵循Cochrane标准方法。主要结局指标是至少随访六个月后的戒烟情况。我们对每个试验采用最严格的戒烟定义,如有可用数据则采用生化验证率。我们计算了每项研究的风险比(RR)。在适当情况下,我们使用Mantel-Haenszel固定效应模型进行荟萃分析。
我们识别出136项研究;133项研究、共64,640名参与者参与了任何类型NRT与安慰剂或非NRT对照组之间的主要比较。大多数研究在成年人中进行,男性和女性数量相似。参与研究的人在研究开始时通常每天至少吸15支烟。我们判定证据质量高;我们判定大多数研究存在高或不清楚的偏倚风险,但将分析仅限于低偏倚风险的研究并未显著改变结果。任何形式NRT相对于对照组的戒烟RR为1.55(95%置信区间(CI)1.49至1.61)。每种类型的汇总RR分别为:尼古丁口香糖1.49(95%CI 1.40至1.60,56项试验,22,581名参与者);尼古丁贴片1.64(95%CI 1.53至1.75,51项试验,25,754名参与者);口服片剂/含片1.52(95%CI 1.32至1.74,8项试验,4439名参与者);尼古丁吸入器1.90(95%CI 1.36至2.67,4项试验,976名参与者);尼古丁鼻喷雾剂2.02(95%CI 1.49至2.73,4项试验,887名参与者)。这些效果在很大程度上与戒烟定义、提供的额外支持强度或提供NRT的环境无关。在孕妇中进行的六项试验的一个子集发现,NRT在接近分娩时对戒烟有统计学显著益处(RR 1.32,95%CI 1.04至1.69;2129名参与者);在四项产后随访参与者的试验中,结果不再具有统计学显著性(RR 1.29,95%CI 0.90至1.86;1675名参与者)。使用NRT的不良事件与产品类型有关,包括贴片引起的皮肤刺激以及口香糖和片剂引起的口腔内部刺激。由于在报告症状的性质、时间和持续时间方面存在广泛差异,阻碍了对各种不良反应发生率进行定量综合分析。任何形式NRT相对于对照组的胸痛或心悸的比值比(OR)为1.88(95%CI 1.37至2.57,15项纳入和排除的试验,11,074名参与者)。然而,两组中胸痛和心悸都很少见,严重不良事件极其罕见。
有高质量证据表明,所有获得许可的NRT形式(口香糖、透皮贴剂、鼻喷雾剂(原文有误,应为鼻喷雾剂)、吸入器和舌下片剂/含片)都可以帮助尝试戒烟的人提高成功戒烟的机会。NRT使戒烟率提高50%至60%,无论环境如何,进一步研究极不可能改变我们对效应估计的信心。NRT的相对有效性似乎在很大程度上与为个体提供的额外支持强度无关。提供更高强度的支持虽然有利于提高戒烟可能性,但对NRT的成功并非必不可少。NRT经常会引起其给药部位的轻微刺激,在极少数情况下会引起非缺血性胸痛和心悸。