All seven OTC NRT studies to date were combined and averaged and produced a 7% six-month quitting rate

Written by Hughes, JR, Shiffman, S, et al

Posted by

OTC NRT versus OTC placebo studies The OTC NRT versus OTC placebo trials were all randomised, parallel groups studies in which subjects received free product. The first study by Schneider et al29 wasrepparttar only placebo controlled OTC study of nicotine gum. The study was published in 1983, 14 years beforerepparttar 147602 next study and had a much smaller sample size (n = 36) than other OTC studies. In addition "laboratory changes" resulted in a notably uneven distribution of subjects to nicotine and placebo groups (13 v 23). Finally, when contacted,repparttar 147603 author believed that this study did not represent an OTC setting because ofrepparttar 147604 amount of contact (N Schneider, personal communication, 20 September 2001). For these reasons, we decided not to includerepparttar 147605 Schneider et al study29 inrepparttar 147606 meta-analysis.

Are nicotine weaning products a bad joke?

Written by John R. Polito Posted by:

Posted by

Nicotine gum, patch and lozenge marketing continues to assert that clean nicotine weaning products double a smoker's chances of quitting. Recent findings raise serious concern over whether they benefit or are a barrier to those seeking freedom from nicotine.

(Charleston SC) October 15 2003--Do over-the-counter (OTC) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products likerepparttar nicotine gum, patch and lozenge really help smokers quit? "Double your chances" has beenrepparttar 147601 cornerstone of NRT marketing for almost two decades but just how useless must a product become before warranting a close examination of what's being doubled?

A March 2003 study review published in Tobacco Control combined and averaged all OTC NRT studies and found that 93% of nicotine patch and gum study participants relapsed to smoking within six months.

The study's financial disclosure indicates thatrepparttar 147602 primary authors were NRT industry consultants. Despite seven months sincerepparttar 147603 study's release and despite reflectingrepparttar 147604 combined results of all seven OTC studies,repparttar 147605 CDC, NIH, FDA, state health departments, and all major health organizations have chosen not to share this horrific 7% midyear abstinence finding with smokers. But why?

Could pharmaceutical industry government influence possibly have become so strong? Could major health non-profits have themselves become addicted to large annual NRT industry contributions for allowing their trusted influence and websites to be used as storefronts to sell nicotine products to nicotine addicts?

NRT use recommendations also fail to warn youth about their chances and risks. After generating a dismal 5% six-month quitting rate among 101 adolescent smokers, a study published inrepparttar 147606 January 2000 edition of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine (APAM) concluded thatrepparttar 147607 patch was ineffective in helping youth smokers quit.

A June 2003 youth NRT use survey, also published in APAM, raisesrepparttar 147608 additional concern that teenage never-smokers are possibly becoming chemical slaves torepparttar 147609 daily use of NRT products. Amongrepparttar 147610 216 surveyed youth who asserted they had used NRT, 40 represented that they had "never smoked a cigarette, not even a few puffs" and 7 ofrepparttar 147611 40 reported using NRT every day.

Aside fromrepparttar 147612 almost secret treatment accorded NRT's adult and youth six-month relapse rates, smokers have long been kept inrepparttar 147613 dark regarding one other critical NRT shortcoming. How arerepparttar 147614 7% adult and 5% youth midyear quitting rates impacted by a second or subsequent NRT attempt?

The study experts call it "recycling" andrepparttar 147615 only known study was published in a journal entitled Addiction in April 1993. Sadly, practice does make perfect with NRT in perfectingrepparttar 147616 odds of defeat. Not a single nicotine patch user who relapsed in a patch study a year earlier was still quit six months into their second patch attempt - zero, none.

Deprived of their natural odds of recovery, how many smokers may have believed in and toyed with NRT for so long that they actually ran out of time and chances?

Recent studies are notrepparttar 147617 only bearers of bad NRT news. Smoker survey findings published inrepparttar 147618 September 11, 2002 edition ofrepparttar 147619 Journal ofrepparttar 147620 American Medical Association concluded that "NRT appears no longer effective in increasing long-term successful cessation in California smokers." London and Minnesota smoker surveys also found no benefit.

If so, why continue depriving smokers of basic performance info that would empower them to make meaningful decisions in how to spend their priceless periods of confidence, in trying to break nicotine's grip upon their brain's dopamine, adrenaline and serotonin pathways? And how canrepparttar 147621 industry continue asserting that NRT is twice as effective as quitting on your own?

According to evidence table data presented inrepparttar 147622 June 2000 U.S. Clinical Practice Guideline,repparttar 147623 historical on-your-own success rate for those not using any products or programs is roughly 10% at six months.

Those marketing NRT ignore a quitter's 10% natural recovery ability and instead look inward to declare victory over a group of placebo device users withinrepparttar 147624 study, where, amazingly, only 3 to 4% succeed in quitting for six-months. But why three times lower?

What if you so deeply believed inrepparttar 147625 NRT marketing hype that you agreed to participate in a study in hopes of receiving 12 weeks of free patches? What if you were quickly able to sense or detect that you were not getting your regular dose of nicotine but had instead been randomly assigned to receiverepparttar 147626 placebo patch? Would frustrated expectations cause you to find an excuse to relapse?

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use