Alicia Allen1, Rachel Isaksson Vogel2, Ellen Meier3, Amanda Anderson3, Joni Jensen3, Herbert H Severson4, Dorothy Hatsukami5. 1. University of Minnesota, Family Medicine and Community Health, Minneapolis, MN, United States; University of Minnesota, Tobacco Research Programs, Minneapolis, MN, United States. Electronic address: alle0299@umn.edu. 2. University of Minnesota, Gynecologic Oncology, Minneapolis, MN, United States; University of Minnesota, Masonic Comprehensive Cancer Center - Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Core, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 3. University of Minnesota, Tobacco Research Programs, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 4. Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, OR, United States. 5. University of Minnesota, Tobacco Research Programs, Minneapolis, MN, United States; University of Minnesota, Psychiatry, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Women are more susceptible to the harmful effects of cigarette smoking. Thus, identifying effective harm reduction approaches for women is necessary. The goal of this project was to examine gender differences in response to snus versus nicotine gum for cigarette avoidance, as a means of harm reduction. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to use snus or nicotine gum as a method to avoid cigarette smoking. Participants attended clinic visits to receive study product, as well as provide biological samples to assess smoking avoidance and biomarkers and report on use of study product and cigarettes. A secondary analysis comparing men and women by randomization to study product was conducted. RESULTS:Participants (n=391; 47% women) were randomized into the snus group (n=196; 45% women) and the gum group (n=195; 49% women). Men used more snus whereas women used more gum (p=0.02). During treatment, men in the snus group had higher total nicotine equivalent values whereas women did not vary by group (p=0.03). Overall, fewer men in the snus group completely avoided cigarettes compared to men in the gum group (e.g., continuous abstinence at Week 12: odds ratio=0.43, 95% confidence interval=0.20-0.93). Among women, there were no differences by randomization in cigarette avoidance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a number of gender differences in response to snus versus nicotine gum, these data suggest that snus may not be an optimal harm reduction approach for either gender.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION:Women are more susceptible to the harmful effects of cigarette smoking. Thus, identifying effective harm reduction approaches for women is necessary. The goal of this project was to examine gender differences in response to snus versus nicotine gum for cigarette avoidance, as a means of harm reduction. METHODS:Participants were randomly assigned to use snus or nicotine gum as a method to avoid cigarette smoking. Participants attended clinic visits to receive study product, as well as provide biological samples to assess smoking avoidance and biomarkers and report on use of study product and cigarettes. A secondary analysis comparing men and women by randomization to study product was conducted. RESULTS:Participants (n=391; 47% women) were randomized into the snus group (n=196; 45% women) and the gum group (n=195; 49% women). Men used more snus whereas women used more gum (p=0.02). During treatment, men in the snus group had higher total nicotine equivalent values whereas women did not vary by group (p=0.03). Overall, fewer men in the snus group completely avoided cigarettes compared to men in the gum group (e.g., continuous abstinence at Week 12: odds ratio=0.43, 95% confidence interval=0.20-0.93). Among women, there were no differences by randomization in cigarette avoidance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a number of gender differences in response to snus versus nicotine gum, these data suggest that snus may not be an optimal harm reduction approach for either gender.
Authors: David T Levy; Elizabeth A Mumford; K Michael Cummings; Elizabeth A Gilpin; Gary Giovino; Andrew Hyland; David Sweanor; Kenneth E Warner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Herbert Severson; Amanda Anderson; Rachael Isaksson Vogel; Joni Jensen; Berry Broadbent; Sharon E Murphy; Steven Carmella; Stephen S Hecht Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 7.552