Nicotine patches in pregnant smokers: randomised, placebo controlled, multicentre trial of efficacy
BMJ 2014; 348 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1622 (Published 11 March 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g1622
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
An accompanying editorial provides several clues regarding both interventions to explain why a randomized controlled trial (RCT) found no improvement in smoking cessation rates when pregnant women receiving behavioral support were given 16 hour delivery nicotine patches (mean dose 18 mg) vs placebo.(1,2)
We are concerned the protocol relied on a planned “quit date” despite the fact that catastrophe theory challenges this hypothesis and it is unsupported by any RCT.(3,4)
The NRT dose and duration were too low, as shown by the enduringly high levels of withdrawal symptoms and craving, which were no different between the placebo and NRT groups. Setting a quit date in these circumstances is too fast and high an expectation - a kind of programmed failure. The highly dependent pregnant women were aware they must not smoke but had to wait until (median) 17 weeks’ gestation to receive an intensive treatment. This predictably would cause very low self esteem. Finally, for a captive population, such a high rate (51%) of loss to follow up suggests women were downhearted by the protocol design.
Can Berlin and colleagues provide information about: a) the delay between inclusion and planned quit date and the delay between the maximum NRT dose and quit date; b) the level of craving for tobacco and of the withdrawal symptoms at the time the quit date was chosen, comparing women who achieved complete abstinence vs the others.
We hypothesise that a quit date may only be relevant and achievable once NRT has relieved the symptoms. Thus accepting a reduction could be a more relevant first target until the dose is adequate.
1 Brose LS. Helping pregnant smokers to quit. BMJ 2014;348:g1808.
2 Berlin I, Grangé G, Jacob N, Tanguy ML. Nicotine patches in pregnant smokers: randomised,placebo controlled, multicentre trial of efficacy. BMJ 2014;348:g1622.
3 West R, Sohal T. "Catastrophic" pathways to smoking cessation: findings from national survey. BMJ 2006 ;332:458-60.
4 Cobb CO, Niaura RS, Donaldson EA, Graham AL. Quit now? Quit soon? Quit when you're ready? Insights about target quit dates for smoking cessation from an online quit date tool. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e55.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Nicotine patches in pregnant smokers: randomised, placebo controlled, multicentre trial of efficacy
The study of the nicotine patch in pregnancy by Berlin (1) was well conducted and powered but did not find increased smoking cessation rates compared to placebo control, in spite of attempting to correct for the inadequate nicotine dosing and poor compliance seen in previous studies.
Apart from the issues raised by the authors and the accompanying editorial, (2) one possible explanation for the disappointing result is the failure to allow for the increased rate of nicotine and cotinine metabolism in pregnancy in calculating the replacement nicotine dose.
The dose of nicotine replacement was based on a conversion ratio derived from a previous study of 10 men and 10 non-pregnant women. (3) In this study, 1 mg of nicotine per day was found to equate to each 12.5 ug/L of salivary cotinine. However, this formula needs to be modified for pregnancy as cotinine levels in pregnancy are significantly lower for a given dose of nicotine compared to non-pregnant populations. The clearance of nicotine and cotinine is much faster (60 and 140% respectively) and the half-life of cotinine is much shorter (8.8 versus 16.6 h) during pregnancy. (4)
A study of cotinine levels in 40 pregnant women found that the median cotinine per cigarette in pregnancy is about one third of the cotinine level found postnatally (3.5ng/ml vs 9.8ng/ml). (5) The authors conclude that ‘the available equivalencies between cotinine level and nicotine intake obtained from adult non-pregnant populations cannot be directly applied during pregnancy’.
A similar study of 21 pregnant women (third trimester), concluded ‘At steady state, while receiving nicotine patch therapy and not smoking … morning serum cotinine levels were significantly lower in pregnant subjects compared with non-pregnant women’. (6)
Therefore, the dose of nicotine prescribed for the pregnant women based on serum cotinine using the unadjusted conversion formula may have been less than optimal. This would explain why the mean daily dose of nicotine prescribed was low (18mg in the nicotine patch group) compared to a median daily dose of 35.5mg prescribed for men and non-pregnant women in a previous trial using the same formula. (7)
The absence of a significant difference in nicotine withdrawal and craving relief between the active and placebo groups is also consistent with nicotine underdosing.
Further studies in pregnancy which use this method for calculating the dose of nicotine for individual patients should consider using a modified conversion ratio based on values from pregnant women, so that adequate nicotine replacement can be assured.
References
1. Berlin I, Grangé G, Jacob N, Tanguy M. Nicotine patches in pregnant smokers: randomised, placebo controlled, multicentre trial of efficacy. BMJ 2014;348:g1622 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1622
2. Brose LS. Helping pregnant smokers to quit. BMJ 2014;348:g1808 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1808
3. Benowitz NL, Jacob P 3rd. Metabolism of nicotine to cotinine studied by a dual stable isotope method. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994;56:483-93
4. Dempsey D, Jacob P 3rd, Benbowitz NL. Accelerated metabolism of nicotine and cotinine in pregnant smokers. J Pharm Exp Ther 2002;3012):594-598
5. Rebagliato M, Bolúmar F, du V Florey C, Jarvis MJ, Perez-Hoyos SP, Hernandez-Aguado I et al. Variations in cotinine levels in smokers during and after pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:568-71
6. Ogburn PL N Jr, Hurt RD, Croghan IT, Schroeder DR, Ramin KD, Offord KP et al. Nicotine patch use in pregnant smokers: Nicotine and cotinine levels and fetal effects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:736-43
7. Berlin I, Jacob N, Coudert M, Perriot J, Schultz L, Rodon N. Adjustment of nicotine replacement therapies according to saliva cotinine concentration: the ADONIS* trial—a randomized study in smokers with medical comorbidities. Addiction 2010;106:833–843
Competing interests: Dr Colin Mendelsohn has received payments for teaching, consulting and conference expenses from Pfizer Australia, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson Pacific. Dr Gillian Gould receives an NHMRC and National Heart Foundation postgraduate research scholarship.