Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;335:222 (4 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.39289.672928.BE
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Neuberger questions our conclusions on the Allen Carr Easyway.1 As he points out, the observational data on abstinence rates are contradictory. This illustrates the difficulty of judging the efficacy of interventions without clinical trial data. Drug companies would not be permitted to make the claims of effectiveness made by Allen Carr Easyway without having funded independent clinical trials. Allen Carr Easyway should fund such trials.
Neuberger also suggests that we ignore evidence of the harm from nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in pregnancy. The literature is insufficient to show whether NRT is completely safe and its efficacy in pregnancy to confidently recommend it. However, given clear evidence of its efficacy in non-pregnant populations and clinical reasoning that a lower dose of nicotine from NRT is safer than a higher dose with additional toxins from cigarettes,2 3 there should be a presumption of use in pregnancy. The UK drug regulatory authority also concluded
Paul Aveyard, National Institute of Health research career scientist1, Robert West, professor of health psychology2
1 Department of Primary Care, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, 2 Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT
p.n.aveyard@bham.ac.uk