Philip H Smith1, Ju Zhang2, Andrea H Weinberger3, Carolyn M Mazure4, Sherry A McKee5. 1. Community Health and Social Medicine, CUNY School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: psmith@med.cuny.edu. 2. Yale University School of Public Health, United States. 3. Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, United States; Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, United States. 4. Psychiatry,Yale University School of Medicine, United States; Women's Health Research at Yale, United States. 5. Psychiatry,Yale University School of Medicine, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of clinical trial data have identified clinically relevant gender differences in the efficacy of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy. It is unclear whether these findings are generalizable to smokers quitting in real-world contexts. METHODS: Using Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS) 2010-2011 cross-sectional data, we generated propensity score matched samples of smokers who quit either unassisted by medication, using only varenicline, or using only transdermal nicotine patch (TNP). We used generalized estimating equations to estimate gender differences in the comparative effectiveness of these cessation options for achieving 30-days of abstinence, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: When stratified by gender, TNP was significantly more effective than unassisted quit attempts for men (OR=1.37; 95%CI=1.02,1.83; p=0.03), but not for women (OR=0.96; 95%CI=0.71,1.31; p=0.82). Varenicline was significantly more effective than unassisted quit attempts for women (OR=1.63; 95%CI=1.16, 2.31; p=0.005), but not men (OR=1.35; 95%CI=0.94,1.96; p=0.11). Varenicline was also more effective than TNP for women (OR=1.51; 95%CI=0.12,2.05; p=0.007) but not men (OR=0.92; 95%CI=0.65,1.31; p=0.64). A significant gender by medication interaction was found only for the comparison of varenicline to TNP (OR=1.64; 95%CI=1.04,2.61; p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Findings for varenicline vs. TNP were consistent with clinical trial data, showing greater differences in effectiveness for women compared to men. Results lend support to the generalizability of clinical trial findings, highlighting the importance of considering gender when offering treatment for smoking cessation.
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of clinical trial data have identified clinically relevant gender differences in the efficacy of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy. It is unclear whether these findings are generalizable to smokers quitting in real-world contexts. METHODS: Using Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS) 2010-2011 cross-sectional data, we generated propensity score matched samples of smokers who quit either unassisted by medication, using only varenicline, or using only transdermal nicotine patch (TNP). We used generalized estimating equations to estimate gender differences in the comparative effectiveness of these cessation options for achieving 30-days of abstinence, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: When stratified by gender, TNP was significantly more effective than unassisted quit attempts for men (OR=1.37; 95%CI=1.02,1.83; p=0.03), but not for women (OR=0.96; 95%CI=0.71,1.31; p=0.82). Varenicline was significantly more effective than unassisted quit attempts for women (OR=1.63; 95%CI=1.16, 2.31; p=0.005), but not men (OR=1.35; 95%CI=0.94,1.96; p=0.11). Varenicline was also more effective than TNP for women (OR=1.51; 95%CI=0.12,2.05; p=0.007) but not men (OR=0.92; 95%CI=0.65,1.31; p=0.64). A significant gender by medication interaction was found only for the comparison of varenicline to TNP (OR=1.64; 95%CI=1.04,2.61; p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Findings for varenicline vs. TNP were consistent with clinical trial data, showing greater differences in effectiveness for women compared to men. Results lend support to the generalizability of clinical trial findings, highlighting the importance of considering gender when offering treatment for smoking cessation.
Authors: Matthew J Carpenter; Michael E Saladin; Steven D Larowe; Erin A McClure; Susan Simonian; Himanshu P Upadhyaya; Kevin M Gray Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Philip H Smith; Andrew J Bessette; Andrea H Weinberger; Christine E Sheffer; Sherry A McKee Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Pongkwan Yimsaard; Ann McNeill; Hua-Hie Yong; K Michael Cummings; Janet Chung-Hall; Summer Sherburne Hawkins; Ann C K Quah; Geoffrey T Fong; Richard J O'Connor; Sara C Hitchman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Nicole L Tosun; Ann M Fieberg; Lynn E Eberly; Katherine A Harrison; Angela R Tipp; Alicia M Allen; Sharon S Allen Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Raina D Pang; Nicholas I Goldenson; Matthew Kirkpatrick; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Junhan Cho; Adam M Leventhal Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2020-01-20
Authors: Andreea C Brabete; Lorraine Greaves; Natalie Hemsing; Julie Stinson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Paul Faulkner; Nicole Petersen; Dara G Ghahremani; Chelsea M Cox; Rachel F Tyndale; Gerhard S Hellemann; Edythe D London Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 4.415