Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Effect of mobile interventions with nicotine replacement therapy sampling on long-term smoking cessation in community smokers: A pragmatic randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Mobile interventions enable personalized behavioral support that could improve smoking cessation (SC) in smokers ready to quit. Scalable interventions, including unmotivated smokers, are needed. We evaluated the effect of personalized behavioral support through mobile interventions plus nicotine replacement therapy sampling (NRT-S) on SC in Hong Kong community smokers.

METHODS

A total of 664 adult daily cigarette smokers (74.4% male, 51.7% not ready to quit in 30 days) were proactively recruited from smoking hotspots and individually randomized (1:1) to the intervention and control groups (each, n=332). Both groups received brief advice and active referral to SC services. The intervention group received 1-week NRT-S at baseline and 12-week personalized behavioral support through SC advisor-delivered Instant Messaging (IM) and a fully automated chatbot. The control group received regular text messages regarding general health at a similar frequency. Primary outcomes were carbon monoxide-validated smoking abstinence at 6 and 12 months post-treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included self-reported 7-day point-prevalence and 24-week continuous abstinence, quit attempts, smoking reduction, and SC service use at 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

By intention-to-treat, the intervention group did not significantly increase validated abstinence at 6 months (3.9% vs 3.0%, OR=1.31; 95% CI: 0.57–3.04) and 12 months (5.4% vs 4.5%, OR=1.21; 95% CI: 0.60–2.45), as were self-reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence, smoking reduction, and SC service use at 6 and 12 months. More participants in the intervention than control group made a quit attempt by 6 months (47.0% vs 38.0%, OR=1.45; 95% CI: 1.06–1.97). Intervention engagement rates were low, but engagement in IM alone or combined with chatbot showed higher abstinence at 6 months (adjusted odds ratios, AORs=4.71 and 8.95, both p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Personalized behavioral support through mobile interventions plus NRT-S did not significantly improve abstinence in community smokers compared to text only messaging. The suboptimal intervention engagement needs to be addressed in future studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04001972.

Tobacco Use Disorder

Tobacco use disorder is highly prevalent; more than a billion individuals use tobacco worldwide. Popular views on the addictive potential of tobacco often underestimate the complex neural adaptations that underpin continued use. Although sometimes trivialized as a minor substance, effects of nicotine on behavior lead to profound morbidity over a lifetime of exposure. Innovations in processing have led to potent forms of tobacco and delivery devices. Proactive treatment strategies focus on pharmacotherapeutic interventions. Innovations on the horizon hold promise to help clinicians address this problem in a phenotypically tailored manner. Efforts are needed to prevent tobacco use for future generations.

Time to First Cigarette: A Potential Clinical Screening Tool for Nicotine Dependence

OBJECTIVES

The time to first cigarette (TTFC) of the day has been identified as the best single-item indicator of nicotine dependence. However, TTFC has not been extensively used in clinical settings and is not a criterion for tobacco use disorder, perhaps due to a lack of information about TTFC's predictive value. This review provides a synthesis of the accumulating literature on TTFC's relationships with nicotine dependence, identify gaps, and inform future clinical and epidemiologic research of potential uses of TTFC.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science ISI databases. We identified 16 articles examining the relation between TTFC and negative outcomes associated with high levels of nicotine addiction and Tobacco Use Disorders (eg, high levels of nicotine and toxicant exposure, progressive use over time, failed cessation, head-and-neck cancers).

RESULTS

Earlier TTFC was consistently associated with greater likelihood of cessation failure and relapse, and higher levels of biomarkers of tobacco exposure. Several of these associations were found among both adult and adolescent smokers, and remained even after accounting for smoking behaviors (eg, cigarettes/day).

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier TTFC is a key indicator of greater nicotine dependence. Knowledge of a smoker's TTFC may allow clinicians to accurately inform smokers of health risks and assign greater resources during cessation attempts. Smokers may be able to use TTFC to self-select cessation aids and accurately assess their unique smoking-related health risks. TTFC may be a better item than cigarettes/day for accurately quantifying dependence and risk in epidemiologic studies.

Fluctuation in red cell distribution width predicts disseminated intravascular coagulation morbidity and mortality in sepsis: a retrospective single-center study

BACKGROUND

Red cell distribution width (RDW) values increase in many diseases and conditions, including sepsis. However, the relationship between RDW fluctuation and prognosis in patients with sepsis or the likely morbidity associated with sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) has not been previously investigated. This study examined the association between dynamic changes to RDW and DIC occurrence in sepsis, as well as the prognostic significance of changes to RDW during hospital stay in patients with sepsis.

METHODS

We collected baseline emergency department admissions' data. All RDW values recorded during hospitalization of patients with sepsis were combined to calculate RDW standard deviation (RDW-SD) and the increase rate of RDW; we also collected data on coagulation indicators. The endpoints were 28-day mortality and sepsis-related DIC morbidity.

RESULTS

Of 232 patients included in our analysis, 66 were diagnosed with DIC (28.4%), and 86 (37.1%) died within 28 days. The RDW-SD and the increase rate of RDW were independent risk factors for 28-day mortality and sepsis-associated DIC morbidity, respectively. The DIC occurrence and mortality rate increased continually with an increasing rate of RDW of at least 6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The RDW-SD and RDW increase rate shown in the study as the indicators of RDW fluctuation can help predict sepsis-related DIC morbidity and prognosis in patients with sepsis.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking abstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I² = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I² = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I² = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I² = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I² = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I² = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Household Smoking Restrictions Relate To Time To First Cigarette Smoked In The Morning

Introduction

The time a smoker waits until the first cigarette of the morning is often used as a measure of dependence with the rationale that more dependent smokers will smoke sooner upon waking than will less dependent smokers after going several hours without a cigarette overnight.

Aims

We sought to examine the relationship between time-to-first-cigarette (TTFC) and household smoking restrictions in two independent samples.

Methods

Two samples of smokers, one treatment-seeking community sample (N = 433) and one non-treatment-seeking sample of smokers with serious mental illness (i.e., Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder, or Bipolar I Disorder) (N = 94), provided information on cigarette dependence with the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence and on household smoking restrictions.

Results

Half (50%) of smokers with serious mental illness and 36.7% of smokers from the general population reported that there were no limitations to smoking in their home. Household smoking restrictions were significantly and positively related to TTFC in both samples.

Conclusions

These data indicate that greater attention to TTFC may be warranted. The TTFC item is intended to measure dependence based on the premise that greater dependence should be associated with shorter TTFC. If TTFC is related to a household smoking ban, however, this item may not be assessing dependence as intended in some cases.

Exploring the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) as a possible measure of nicotine dependence

BACKGROUND

The time to first cigarette (TTFC) of the day is an emerging single-item indicator of nicotine dependence due to its robust associations with indices of physical dependence. However, it is unclear if this measure adequately captures other dimensions of dependence. The Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) is a brief questionnaire used to assess psychological aspects of dependence that has not yet been extensively applied to smoking research.

METHODS

We examined associations between the SDS and TTFC among 255 smokers during the baseline session of a cessation trial. We also examined associations of the SDS and TTFC with biobehavioral dependence indices, quitting behaviors, and cognitive-affective variables and compared the relative contributions of both measures in predicting these variables.

RESULTS

TTFC was unrelated to SDS total score, but was related to individual SDS items. TTFC, but not SDS, was correlated with indices of physical dependence (e.g., cigarettes per day [CPD], carbon monoxide [CO]). Both TTFC and SDS were associated with quitting behaviors, with opposite directionality of associations. TTFC and SDS were both associated with cognitive-affective variables, but SDS outperformed TTFC in strength and number of these relationships. Including both the SDS and TTFC as regression model predictors often increased the amount of variance explained.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that SDS and TTFC assess different constructs of nicotine dependence; among smokers, the SDS appears to tap into nonphysical components of dependence (e.g., loss of control) that relate to quitting motivation and affect. Assessing nicotine dependence using only the SDS may fail to capture physical dependence and, further, may not reflect the same domains of addiction the SDS assesses in other drugs of abuse. Nonetheless, using 3 SDS items in addition to TTFC may offer utility over using TTFC alone.

Retention predictors of a smoking treatment provided by a public psychosocial unit in Brazil

Psychosocial units in Brazil (CAPS) provide access to mental health and addiction patients, who are not routinely treated for nicotine dependence. The present study analysed predictors of retention of a 6-week treatment provided by a CAPS unit to 367 smokers with a high rate of psychiatric disorders and addictions for the period 2007-2010. Several baseline variables were collected. Retention was defined as the presence of the individual in all four medical consultations and six group sessions. Multivariate discrete time Cox survival regression models were used to test for the outcome of interest. Timetables were used to explore in which moment of the treatment each predictor was important. Time to smoking the first cigarette (TTFC) 5 min or later after waking and nicotine patch use (nicotine replacement therapy, NRT) were associated with retention. The present study supports the importance of the variables TTFC and NRT when used in treatment retention for a sample with a high rate of psychiatric and alcohol disorders. NRT seems to be very important in the beginning of the treatment, probably because of withdrawal symptoms. Individuals currently undergoing psychiatric treatment and with alcohol problems had good retention rates comparable to the other individuals.

Time to first cigarette predicts cessation outcomes in adolescent smokers

INTRODUCTION

This study examined the relationship between the time to the first cigarette (TTFC) of the morning with quit status among adolescent smokers at the completion of a school-based smoking cessation program. Among those who did not quit, the relationship of TTFC with changes in cigarettes/day (CPD) was also examined.

METHODS

A total of 1,167 adolescent smokers (1,024 nonquitters and 143 quitters) from 4 states participating in efficacy and effectiveness studies of the Not-On-Tobacco (N-O-T) cessation program were assessed prior to entry into the program and again 3 months later at the end of treatment. Linear and logistic regression analyses determined the influence of treatment condition, age, gender, motivation to quit, confidence in quitting ability, baseline CPD, and TTFC on quit status and end-of-treatment CPD.

RESULTS

Adolescents with a TTFC of >30min of waking were twice as likely to quit at end of treatment. Additionally, among those who did not quit at end of treatment (n = 700 for TTFC ≤30min and n = 324 for TTFC for >30min), those with a TTFC within 30min of waking smoked a greater number of CPD. The relationships of TTFC with both of these outcomes remained when controlling for all other predictor variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying adolescent smokers who smoke their first cigarette of the day within the first 30min of waking prior to a quit attempt may help to classify those individuals as having a greater risk for cessation failure. Thus, TTFC may be a behavioral indicator of nicotine dependence in adolescents.