546P - Randomised controlled trial comparing nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) plus brief counselling and brief counselling alone on smoking cessation in...

Date 18 December 2016
Event ESMO Asia 2016 Congress
Session Poster lunch
Topics Cancer Aetiology, Epidemiology, Prevention
Lung and other Thoracic Tumours
Presenter Dexton Johns
Citation Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (suppl_9): ix177-ix178. 10.1093/annonc/mdw600
Authors D.A. Johns
  • Dentistry, D M wayanad institute of Medical Science, 673602 - Kalpetta/IN

Abstract

Background

Tobacco use in any modality is the greatest preventable morbidity and mortality in developing world. Cessation interventions require an equal balance of pharmacotherapy and behavioural supportive care. Studies of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in patients to date have been relatively small, and although suggestive of a beneficial effect, have not shown significant differences relative to placebo, results supported by a systematic review of the subject. We have therefore conducted a pragmatic open randomised controlled trial to determine whether a brief cessation counselling intervention suitable for widespread use, or the same counselling intervention given with NRT, is more effective than usual care in promoting smoking cessation.

Methods

Patients who were prone to lung cancer were randomised to receive either usual care (no additional advice at admission), counselling alone (20-minute intervention with written materials), or NRT plus counselling (counselling intervention with a 6 week course of NRT). Inclusion Criteria-Previous lung disease, a family history of lung cancer, Past cancer treatment, Lowered immunity, Previous smoking related cancers, Exposure to certain chemicals and radon gas. Continuous and point prevalence abstinence from smoking (validated by exhaled carbon monoxide

Results

300 smokers were enrolled. Abstinence was higher in the NRT plus counselling group (n = 100) than in the counselling alone (n = 100) or usual care (n = 100) groups. The difference between the groups was significant for validated point prevalence abstinence at 3 months (65%,33%, 27% respectively, p = 0.045) and at 12 months (27%, 16%, 14%, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference between counselling alone and usual care, or in reduction in cigarette consumption between the treatment groups.

Conclusions

NRT given with brief counselling to patients prone to lung cancer is an effective routine smoking cessation intervention.

Clinical trial indentification

Legal entity responsible for the study

N/A

Funding

DM wayanad institute of Medical Science

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.