View
215
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Real-world effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy in pregnancy
Leonie S. Brose, PhD
Andy McEwen, PhD & Robert West, PhD
University College London and
National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training
Background
• Smoking in pregnancy in UK 1
– 26% immediately before or during pregnancy
– 12% throughout and at delivery
– Underreporting likely
• Smoking in pregnancy increases risk of e.g. 2
– Preterm birth – Placental abruption – Low birth-weight – Sudden infant death syndrome– Adult morbidities such as obesity, diabetes, asthma, mental
health problems
• Stopping smoking reduces increased risks
1 NHS Information Centre, 20112 USDHHS, 2004
Background
• In general population: Medication increases quit rates– Single nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)– Combination of two (or more) NRT products – Bupropion (Zyban)– Varenicline (Champix)
Brose et al, 2011, Thorax
Background
• Pregnancy: NRT can be used • Review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) failed to
find evidence for effectiveness 3
– Evaluated single NRT, mostly nicotine patch
• NHS Stop Smoking Services 4
– Behavioural support and medication– Different types of support and range of settings– More than 20,000 pregnant women per year– Many use combination NRT
3 Coleman et al, Cochrane, 20124 NHS Information Centre, 2011
Objective and research questions
To assess the association of single and combination NRT with success of quit attempts of pregnant smokers in clinical practice while adjusting for smoker and treatment characteristics.– Are negative RCT findings for single NRT borne out
in clinical practice?– Combination NRT has not been evaluated in RCTs;
does it confer a benefit for smoking cessation in pregnant smokers?
Sample
Identified as pregnant N=9,587
N=315,721 treatment episodesin 49 Services
April 2009 – June 2011
Missing due date
Main analysisN=3,880
N=8,999(Sensitivity analysis)
Missing age, sex, setting or support type (n=71)
Varenicline or bupropion (n=79) Telephone support (n=438)
Methods
OutcomeCO-validated 4-week quit rates Russell Standard (Clinical)
Clients lost to follow-up counted as smoking 5
Predictors
• Medication (none, single NRT, combination NRT)• Treatment setting (specialist clinics, home visit,
primary care, other) • Type of support (group, 1-to-1, drop-in, other) • Occupational grade (employed, not employed,
student, unable to code)• Age • Months pregnant• Ethnicity (white, other)• Year of quit attempt
5 West et al, Addiction, 2005
Dependence: Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) completed for 29%. Differences between medications assessed separately.
Methods
• Two-level logistic regression models to assess effect of predictors on quit rates
Sensitivity analyses
a. Including those without months pregnant, n=8,999
b. Excluding all lost to follow-up, remaining n=2,887
N=3,880No medication n=588 (15.2%)
Single NRTn=1166 (30.1%)
Combination NRTn=2126 (54.8%)
Age, Mean (SD) 25.3 (6.0) 25.7 (6.3) 26.4 (6.1)Months pregnant, Mean (SD) 3.5 (2.1) 4.3 (1.9) 4.3 (1.8)Ethnicity % (n) White 73.3 88.2 90.3 Occupational grade % In employment 24.1 38.6 41.6 Not in employment 24.7 44.9 43.9 Unable to code 48.5 11.1 10.1Intervention setting % Specialist clinic 71.8 51.1 49.2 Home visit a 16.3 29.4 36.0 Primary care 9.7 12.3 8.5
Other 2.2 7.2 6.4Intervention type % One-to-one 79.8 74.1 81.2 Group 1.2 4.1 1.3 Other 11.4 10.9 10.9CO-validated 4-week quit % 16.3 24.8 35.7Lost to follow-up % 29.4 31.7 21.2
a. Provided by specialist practitioners in 75% of cases
Predictors of CO-validated 4-week abstinence2-level multivariable logistic regression, n=3,880
Odds ratio (OR)
95% Confidence interval (CI) p value
Medication, reference: None Single NRT 1.06 0.60 to 1.86 0.84 Combination NRT 1.93 1.13 to 3.29 0.02Intervention setting, reference: Specialist clinic Home visit 1.16 0.89 to 1.51 0.28 Primary care 0.57 0.41 to 0.79 0.001 Other setting 1.00 0.70 to 1.42 0.98Intervention type, reference: One-to-one Group 0.62 0.35 to 1.12 0.11 Drop-in 0.58 0.42 to 0.82 0.002 Other 0.97 0.69 to 1.36 0.85Months pregnant, per month increase 0.95 0.91 to 0.99 0.02
Also adjusted for ethnicity, age, occupational grade
Further results
Dependence
Those using combination NRT more dependent. F(2,1124)=14.26, p<0.001
Sensitivity analyses
a. Including those without information on stage of pregnancy
b. Excluding all lost to follow-up Results remain: Combination NRT benefit over no medication,
single NRT no benefit.
• Single NRT shows no benefit - in line with RCTs • But combination NRT associated with success
– Not due to differences in intervention or client characteristics, including dependence
• Common non-specialist treatment (primary care) and later stage of pregnancy associated with worse outcomes
• Limitation: Correlational design, but adjusted• Suggests need for full-scale RCT
Discussion
Discussion
• First evidence on combination NRT in pregnancy
• Exposes foetus to higher levels of nicotine than single NRT or stopping all use of nicotine, but: – Other options associated with resumed smoking– NRT delivers nicotine without carbon monoxide
and other reproductive toxins in cigarettes
• High-quality evidence-based behavioural support 6,7 should be provided regardless of medication
6 Lumley et al, Cochrane, 20097 Lorencatto et al, NTR, 2012
Conclusions
• Use of a combination of nicotine transdermal patch and a faster acting form of nicotine replacement therapy appears to confer a benefit in terms of promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy.
• While this conclusion is based on observational data, it lends support to this treatment option pending confirmation by a randomised controlled trial.
Recommended