There are a number of commercial products designed to help smokers kick the habit, including nicotine patches and nicotine gum. Collectively, they are known as nicotine replacement therapies (NRT).
Do they work? Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the University of Massachusetts Boston suggest that they do not. They claims, they say, just don't add up.
"What this study shows is the need for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees regulation of both medications to help smokers quit and tobacco products, to approve only medications that have been proven to be effective in helping smokers quit in the long-term and to lower nicotine in order to reduce the addictiveness of cigarettes," said co-author Gregory Connolly, director of the Center for Global Tobacco Control at HSPH.
The research team included lead author Hillel Alpert, research scientist at HSPH, and co-author Lois Biener of the University of Massachusetts Boston's Center for Survey Research. They followed 787 adult smokers in Massachusetts who had recently quit smoking.
How they reached their conclusions
The participants were surveyed over three time periods: 2001-2002, 2003-2004, and 2005-2006. Participants were asked whether they had used a nicotine replacement therapy in the form of the nicotine patch (placed on the skin), nicotine gum, nicotine inhaler, or nasal spray to help them quit, and if so, what was the longest period of time they had used the product continuously. They also were asked if they had joined a quit-smoking program or received help from a doctor, counselor, or other professional.
The results showed that, for each time period, almost one-third of recent quitters reported to have relapsed. The researchers found no difference in relapse rate among those who used NRT for more than six weeks, with or without professional counseling. No difference in quitting success with use of NRT was found for either heavy or light smokers.
"This study shows that using NRT is no more effective in helping people stop smoking cigarettes in the long-term than trying to quit on one's own," Alpert said. He added that even though clinical trials have found NRT to be effective, the new findings demonstrate the importance of empirical studies regarding effectiveness when used in the general population.
Dueling studies
Their findings appeared the same day as researchers at George Washington University called for including smoking cessation treatments under Medicaid, arguing the government would receive a good return on its investment in the form of improved health. The Massachusetts researchers disagree.
Biener said that using public funds to provide NRT to the population at large is of questionable value, particularly when it reduces the amount of money available for smoking interventions shown in previous studies to be effective, such as media campaigns, promotion of no smoking policies, and tobacco price increases.
Smoking cessation medications have been available over the counter since 1996, yet U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that the previous adult smoking rate decline and quitting rates have stalled in the past five years.
Constance Tyler (Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:20:06 +0000): First, the drugs prescribed are just another rip off and more $$$ in the drug companies pocket. Second, the FDA is in the pocket of the drug companies as that is where most of their funding comes from. Third, in order to quit smoking, you really, really want to, not wish to. My husband and I quit by setting up a date in the future and prepared for the big day. Just like if we were going to take a trip or whatever. When that day came, we were ready. We smoked like crazy the last day right up to midnight. It wasn't that hard to do really and every day, we set aside the money that we would have spent on the cigs and in less than a year, we had a nice nest egg and used it to take a two week vacation in the smokey mountains and even hiked the Appalachian trail. Never could have done that before without gasping for breath.
Judy Landon (Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:16:07 +0000): I've been using the patches as a placebo, I guess. Last year I used them and was off the cigs for two months, then relapsed. This time I have been off for two months, and have been very close to relapsing. I keep reminding myself that I cannot afford to smoke and that my breathing has gone from scary to being able to ride a bicycle. So, the rewards are great. The patch is not taking away the cravings unless I believe it does, leading me to believe I might be better off going to a hypnotist one time rather than spending almost as much as the cigs on something that doesn't work.
Tonya Bullard Dekeyrel (Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:08:33 +0000): I used the patches after they first came out. I am happy to say that I have been smoke free for 15 years. I did have to modify other habits simultaneously. I started exercisisng and watching my diet more closely. I had smoked for 16 years and I consumed 2 packs a day. I also ate wieght watchers popcicles. I avoided sitting and drinking coffee. I would get up and clean or walk to distract my attention when I started to feel a urge to smoke.. I was very lucky that after about 4 months of not smoking and staying away from smoky areas I became hypersensitive to the smell of smoke and would. become very nauseous if I smelled smoke in any way. I know they helped me and I am very thankful.
Carol Reid (Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:37:46 +0000): Interesting that studies on cigarettes were NEVER divided between those made with genetically altered, heightened nicotine and other additives that are known carcinogens, nor were the materials used in the filters or papers taken into account at all in the cancer & other health studies. It's no secret nicotine can be useful medically IF it's not messed with or in heightened doses. Those cigarettes that were altered chemically with carcinogens should have been classified as a drug.
The problems with every study I have ever seen that was used against the entire tobacco industry is that not a single one, nor any I've seen since, I believe with one exception of a study that mentions in passing (after the lawsuits, etc.) is that there are cigarettes that do NOT, nor have they ever used "altered" tobacco.
Those that smoked regular, unaltered tobacco from pipes, cigars & cigarettes did not have an increase in cancers, emphysema, COPD, different cardiovascular diseases, AND the exaggerated claims that "cigarettes" (making it sound as though the tobacco plant that naturally occurs is a all horrible - I have yet to see a single study showing this to be the case.)
I have seen s-called, "scientific" studies that go on about the addictiveness of cigarettes because of the nicotine.
IF nicotine was THAT addictive, we'd have our kids & ourselves "hooked" on cauliflower and other veggies.