Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A nicotine mouth spray has advantages over other acute forms of nicotine replacement therapy, such as a faster uptake of nicotine and faster relief of craving. This multicentre, randomised (2:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study evaluated self-reported, carbon monoxide-verified continuous abstinence from smoking from week 2 until weeks 6, 24, and 52 in 479 smokers (≥ 1 cigarette per day) who were treated with either active (n=318) or placebo (n=161) spray for 12 weeks and low-intensity counselling at three smoking cessation clinics in Denmark and Germany. Active treatment yielded significantly higher continuous abstinence rates than placebo from week 2 until week 6 (26.1% versus 16.1%; relative success rate (RR) 1.62, 95% CI 1.09-2.41), week 24 (15.7% versus 6.8%; RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.23-4.30), and week 52 (13.8% versus 5.6%; RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.24-4.94). Most adverse events were mild to moderate, and 9.1% of subjects on active spray withdrew due to adverse events, compared to 7.5% on placebo. The overall rate of treatment-related adverse events was 87.4% with active spray versus 71.4% with placebo spray. Nicotine mouth spray delivered significantly higher 6-, 24- and 52-week continuous abstinence rates than placebo.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tønnesen et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: