TY - JOUR
T1 - Association between different nicotine replacement therapy regimens and 6-month smoking cessation success
T2 - An implementation study
AU - Chen, Chun Ying
AU - Wu, Jia Ling
AU - Lee, Shang Chi
AU - Kuo, Chin Wei
AU - Chen, Chuan Yu
AU - Lin, Esther Ching Lan
AU - Li, Chung Yi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024, Taiwan Public Health Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Objectives: To conduct an implementation study by using data from Taiwan’s Second Generation Smoking Cessation Service to explore the associations between different nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) regimens and smoking cessation success in the real world. Methods: Data on initial NRT treatment sessions from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022, were included. Propensity score matching was applied to obtain a 1:1:1 sample. The exposure variables were three NRT types: Long-acting NRT alone, short-acting NRT alone, and combined long-acting and short-acting NRT. The outcome variable was smoking cessation at the 6-month mark. Logistic regression was performed using generalized estimation equations. Results: A total of 26,604 NRT treatment sessions were included. The 6-month cessation prevalence was 19.86%. After adjustment for potential confounders, short-acting NRT alone (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–1.25) and combined NRT (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.12–1.31) were both associated with higher odds of cessation success when compared with long-acting NRT alone. However, the short-acting oral inhaler did not reach statistical significance (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.85–1.25). A significant interaction was detected between age and NRT type; compared with long-acting NRT alone, short-acting NRT alone and combined NRT were more effective in users aged 18–44. Conclusions: The finding that combined NRT is more effective than longacting NRT alone is consistent with the results of previous randomized controlled trials. However, this study also revealed that short-acting NRT alone is more effective than long-acting NRT alone, particularly among users aged 18–44 years. This work was funded by the Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare. The content of this research may not represent the opinion of the Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare.
AB - Objectives: To conduct an implementation study by using data from Taiwan’s Second Generation Smoking Cessation Service to explore the associations between different nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) regimens and smoking cessation success in the real world. Methods: Data on initial NRT treatment sessions from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022, were included. Propensity score matching was applied to obtain a 1:1:1 sample. The exposure variables were three NRT types: Long-acting NRT alone, short-acting NRT alone, and combined long-acting and short-acting NRT. The outcome variable was smoking cessation at the 6-month mark. Logistic regression was performed using generalized estimation equations. Results: A total of 26,604 NRT treatment sessions were included. The 6-month cessation prevalence was 19.86%. After adjustment for potential confounders, short-acting NRT alone (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–1.25) and combined NRT (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.12–1.31) were both associated with higher odds of cessation success when compared with long-acting NRT alone. However, the short-acting oral inhaler did not reach statistical significance (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.85–1.25). A significant interaction was detected between age and NRT type; compared with long-acting NRT alone, short-acting NRT alone and combined NRT were more effective in users aged 18–44. Conclusions: The finding that combined NRT is more effective than longacting NRT alone is consistent with the results of previous randomized controlled trials. However, this study also revealed that short-acting NRT alone is more effective than long-acting NRT alone, particularly among users aged 18–44 years. This work was funded by the Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare. The content of this research may not represent the opinion of the Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85218759321
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85218759321#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.6288/TJPH.202412_43(6).113069
DO - 10.6288/TJPH.202412_43(6).113069
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85218759321
SN - 1023-2141
VL - 43
SP - 607
EP - 618
JO - Taiwan Journal of Public Health
JF - Taiwan Journal of Public Health
IS - 6
ER -