Skip to main content
Nicotine & Tobacco Research logoLink to Nicotine & Tobacco Research
letter
. 2017 May 18;20(5):654–655. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntx106

Beyond Quitting: Any Additional Impact of Mailing Free Nicotine Patches to Current Smokers?

John A Cunningham 1,2,3,, Vladyslav Kushnir 1,4, Peter Selby 1,2,5,6, Rachel F Tyndale 1,2,7, Laurie Zawertailo 1,7, Scott T Leatherdale 8
PMCID: PMC5892854  PMID: 28521035

With smoking being the leading cause of preventable mortality,1 there is a great need to develop effective means to promote tobacco cessation. One method, mailing free nicotine patches through mass distribution initiatives, has proved popular in both United States and Canada.2,3 Further, mailing nicotine patches without behavioral support has been found to promote tobacco cessation when compared to participants randomized into a no intervention control group at a 6-month follow-up (30-day abstinence: 7.6% vs. 3.0%; odds ratio [OR], 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44 to 4.89, p = .002).4 While promoting abstinence is the gold standard in tobacco cessation initiatives, does mailing nicotine patches to those interested have additional benefits even among those who do not succeed at quitting?5–7

Methods

In our trial (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT01429129),4,8 we recruited 2093 current adult smokers (10 or more cigarettes per day) using a random digit dialling telephone survey who were willing to take part in a baseline, 8-week, and 6-month longitudinal survey (participants paid $20 at each time point). As part of the baseline survey, we asked a series of hypothetical questions to identify participants who would be interested in receiving free nicotine patches, would use them to try to quit smoking within 1 week of receiving them, and would be willing to have them mailed to their home. Of these participants, those who did not report any health contraindications to using nicotine patches (n = 999) were randomized into two conditions—a condition where they were told that we actually had a supply of free nicotine patches (5 weeks per person) and could mail it to their home (n = 500; all said yes), or a no intervention condition (n = 499) that was not told about nicotine patches and had no awareness that anyone else was receiving patches. All participants were then followed up at 8 weeks and 6 months. Beyond assessing abstinence at these time points (7-day abstinence at 8 weeks and 30-day abstinence at 6 months),4 we asked if current smoking participants had made a serious quit attempt (for at least 24 hours), were intending to quit in the next 30 days, and the number of cigarettes per day that they were currently smoking. Analyses were conducted using an intention-to-treat approach and with missing data replaced with the last available value carried forward. Analyses reported here exclude participants reporting abstinence at each time point (pattern of outcomes are the same when these participants were included—not reported here; no significant differences observed at baseline).

Results

Compared to those who did not receive free nicotine patches, participants who received the patches reported an increased likelihood of a serious quit attempt, and intending to quit in the next 30 days, at both 8 weeks and 6 months (Quit attempts: 8 weeks: OR = 5.00; 95%CI, 3.61 to 6.90; p < .001; 6 months: OR = 2.96; 95%CI, 2.22 to 3.94; p < .001; intent to quit: OR = 2.28; 95%CI, 1.73 to 3.00, p < .001; 6 months: OR = 1.47; 95%CI, 1.05 to 1.89, p = .023). Further, those who received nicotine patches reported smoking fewer cigarettes per day compared to those in the no intervention control group (8 weeks: mean [SD], 12.99 [9.28] vs. 17.33 [8.76] cigarettes per day; Exp(β) = 0.75 [95%CI, 0.66 to 0.86]; p < .001; 6 months: mean [SD], 13.17 [9.72] vs. 16.04 [9.16] cigarettes per day; Exp(β) = 0.82 [95%CI, 0.72 to 0.94]; p = .003).

Discussion

The provision of free nicotine patch by mail appears to have secondary benefits beyond promoting abstinence that are supportive of tobacco cessation objectives. These findings provide additional evidence of the benefits of mass distribution initiatives as well as the effectiveness of nicotine patches to promote tobacco cessation, even when behavioral support is not provided.

Funding

This research is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

Declaration of Interests

RFT and JAC are Canada Research Chairs funded by Health Canada. STL is a Chair in Applied Public Health funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) in partnership with Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction (INMHA) and Institute of Population and Public Health (IPPH). Support to CAMH for salary of scientists and infrastructure has been provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

JAC, VK, LZ, and SL have no conflicts of interest to declare. RFT declares that, in the past 3 years, she has consulted with Apotex on topics unrelated to smoking cessation. PS has received grant/research funding from Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Canada Inc., and Shoppers Drug Mart. Speakers’ bureau fees were received from Pfizer Inc. Canada, Pfizer Global, and ABBVie. Furthermore, Dr. Selby has received consulting fees from Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Canada Inc., Pfizer Global, NABI Pharmaceuticals, and V-CC Systems Inc.

Acknowledgments

JAC and VK had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. We acknowledge the support of CAMH and the CAMH foundation, the Canada Foundation for Innovation (#20289 and #16014), the Ontario Ministry of Research. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

References

  • 1. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (vol 380, pg 2224, 2012). Lancet. 2013;381(9874):1276–1276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Cummings KM, Fix B, Celestino P, Carlin-Menter S, O’Connor R, Hyland A. Reach, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of free nicotine medication giveaway programs. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2006;12(1):37–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Zawertailo L, Dragonetti R, Bondy SJ, Victor JC, Selby P. Reach and effectiveness of mailed nicotine replacement therapy for smokers: 6-month outcomes in a naturalistic exploratory study. Tob Control. 2013;22(3):e4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Cunningham JA, Kushnir V, Selby P, Tyndale R, Zawertailo L, Leatherdale S. Mailing nicotine patches to promote tobacco cessation among adult smokers: Primary outcomes of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(2):184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Carpenter MJ, Hughes JR, Gray KM, Wahlquist AE, Saladin ME, Alberg AJ. Nicotine therapy sampling to induce quit attempts among smokers unmotivated to quit: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(21):1901–1907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Cook JW, Collins LM, Fiore MC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of motivation phase intervention components for use with smokers unwilling to quit: a factorial screening experiment. Addiction. 2016;111(1):117–128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Jardin BF, Cropsey KL, Wahlquist AE, et al. Evaluating the effect of access to free medication to quit smoking: a clinical trial testing the role of motivation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16(7):992–999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Cunningham JA, Leatherdale ST, Selby PL, Tyndale RF, Zawertailo L, Kushnir V. Randomized controlled trial of mailed Nicotine Replacement Therapy to Canadian smokers: study protocol. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Nicotine & Tobacco Research are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES