Addiction & Criminology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Rapid Communication - Addiction & Criminology (2024) Volume 7, Issue 5

Nicotine replacement therapy: Pros, cons, and effectiveness.

Laurie Veldhuizen *

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada

*Corresponding Author:
Laurie Veldhuizen
Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada
E-mail: lauri.veldhuizen@camh.ca

Received: 01-Oct -2024, Manuscript No. AARA-24-153129; Editor assigned: 02-Oct-2024, PreQC No. AARA-24-153129 (PQ); Reviewed:16-Oct-2024, QC No. AARA-24-153129; Revised:21-Oct-2024, Manuscript No. AARA-24-153129 (R); Published:30-Oct-2024, DOI:10.35841/aara-7.5.234

Citation: Veldhuizen L. Nicotine replacement therapy: Pros, cons, and effectiveness. Addict Criminol.2024;7(5):234

Visit for more related articles at Addiction & Criminology

Abstract

  

Introduction

Nicotine addiction is a significant public health challenge, contributing to millions of premature deaths each year due to smoking-related illnesses. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is a widely used intervention aimed at helping individuals quit smoking by providing a controlled dose of nicotine without the harmful substances found in tobacco. This article explores the pros and cons of NRT, its effectiveness, and its role in smoking cessation strategies [1].

NRT works by supplying nicotine to the body in a less harmful form, helping to reduce withdrawal symptoms and cravings associated with quitting smoking. Various forms of NRT are available, including: These are worn on the skin and deliver a steady dose of nicotine throughout the day. Chewing gum allows users to control their nicotine intake while also providing an oral fixation substitute [2].

NRT has been shown to significantly alleviate withdrawal symptoms and cravings, making it easier for individuals to quit smoking. By providing a controlled amount of nicotine, users can gradually taper off their dependency [3].

Research indicates that NRT can double the chances of successfully quitting smoking compared to placebo treatments. A meta-analysis found that individuals using NRT were more likely to remain smoke-free at six months compared to those who did not use any form of nicotine replacement. The range of available NRT products allows individuals to choose a method that best fits their lifestyle and preferences, increasing the likelihood of adherence [4].

Many NRT products are available over the counter, making them easily accessible to those seeking to quit smoking without the need for a prescription. Compared to smoking, NRT is associated with a lower risk of health complications. While not completely risk-free, NRT eliminates exposure to the tar and toxic chemicals found in combustible tobacco products [5].

While NRT is designed to help individuals quit smoking, there is a risk that some users may develop a dependence on nicotine replacement products themselves (Baker et al., 2016). This can prolong nicotine use rather than facilitating cessation. NRT can cause side effects such as skin irritation (from patches), nausea, dizziness, and headaches. Some individuals may experience gastrointestinal issues from nicotine gum or lozenges [6].

The cost of NRT products can be a barrier for some individuals, particularly if they are not covered by insurance. While many public health programs provide free or low-cost NRT, access can vary by region. NRT alone may not address the behavioral aspects of nicotine addiction. Some studies suggest that combining NRT with behavioral counseling or support increases the chances of success. Individuals who do not receive additional support may be less likely to achieve long-term cessation [7].

Numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of NRT in promoting smoking cessation. A Cochrane review found that NRT significantly increased the likelihood of quitting smoking, with patches and gum being particularly effective. The effectiveness of NRT is enhanced when combined with behavioral support, such as counseling or support groups [8].

Furthermore, NRT is beneficial for specific populations, including pregnant women, where studies have shown that the use of NRT can reduce the risk of low birth weight and premature birth associated with smoking. However, healthcare providers should weigh the potential risks and benefits for each individual case, especially in vulnerable populations [9].

Similar to gum, lozenges dissolve in the mouth, releasing nicotine gradually. These methods deliver nicotine through inhalation or nasal absorption, mimicking the act of smoking more closely. Some users may mistakenly believe that because NRT is safer than smoking, they can use it indefinitely. This perception can delay the cessation process and prolong nicotine [10].

conclusion

Nicotine replacement therapy represents a valuable tool in the fight against nicotine addiction, offering significant advantages in reducing withdrawal symptoms and increasing cessation success rates. While there are cons, including the potential for dependence and side effects, the benefits of NRT make it an essential component of smoking cessation strategies. By understanding the pros and cons, individuals can make informed decisions about their quit attempts and work towards a smoke-free life. Ultimately, integrating NRT with behavioral support and ongoing resources will enhance its effectiveness and help individuals achieve their goal of quitting smoking.

References

  1. Schultz WM, Kelli HM, Lisko JC, Varghese T, Shen J, Sandesara P, Quyyumi AA, Taylor HA, Gulati M, Harold JG, Mieres JH. Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular outcomes: challenges and interventions. Circulation. 2018;137(20):2166-78.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Lundahl BW, Kunz C, Brownell C, Tollefson D, Burke BL. A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing: Twenty-five years of empirical studies. Res Soc Work Pract. 2010;20(2):137-60.

    3. Google Scholar

  3. Fiorentino R, Chiarelli F. Treatment of dyslipidaemia in children. Biomed. 2021;9(9):1078.

    4. Google Scholar

  4. Shishehbor MH, White CJ, Gray BH, Menard MT, Lookstein R, Rosenfield K, Jaff MR. Critical limb ischemia: an expert statement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(18):2002-15.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Cepeda-Benito A, Reynoso JT, Erath S. Meta-analysis of the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: differences between men and women. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72(4):712.

    6. Google Scholar

  6. Collado A, Stokes A. Imagining the future can shape the present: A systematic review of the impact of episodic future thinking on substance use outcomes. Psychol Addict Behav. 2024;38(1):134.

    7. Google Scholar

  7. Shishehbor MH, White CJ, Gray BH, Menard MT, Lookstein R, Rosenfield K, Jaff MR. Critical limb ischemia: an expert statement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(18):2002-15.

    8. Google Scholar

  8. Rosenwasser Y, Berger I, Loewy ZG. Therapeutic approaches for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. Pathogens. 2022;11(12):1513.

    9. Google Scholar

  9. Chapman CL, Holt SM, O’Connell CT, Brazelton SC, Medved HN, Howells WA, Reed EL, Needham KW, Halliwill JR, Minson CT. Hypohydration attenuates increases in creatinine clearance to oral protein loading and the renal hemodynamic response to exercise pressor reflex. J Appl Physiol. 2024;136(3):492-508.

    10. Google Scholar

  10. Agbor-Enoh S, Shah P, Tunc I, Hsu S, Russell S, Feller E, Shah K, Rodrigo ME, Najjar SS, Kong H, Pirooznia M. Cell-free DNA to detect heart allograft acute rejection. Circulation. 2021;143(12):1184-97.

    11. Google Scholar

Get the App