Interventions to reduce harm from continued tobacco use.
BACKGROUND
It may be reasonable to try to reduce the harm from continued smoking amongst smokers unable or unwilling to quit. Possible approaches to reduce the exposure to toxins from smoking include reducing the amount of tobacco used, and using less toxic products. The interventions evaluated in controlled trials have predominantly attempted to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked.


OBJECTIVE
To assess the effect of interventions intended to reduce the harm from smoking on the following: biomarkers of damage caused by tobacco, biomarkers of tobacco exposure, number of cigarettes smoked, quitting, and long-term health status.


METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register using free text and MeSH terms for harm reduction, smoking reduction and cigarette reduction. The initial search was in March 2006, updated in March 2007.


METHODS
Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions in tobacco users to reduce amount smoked, or to reduce harm from smoking by means other than cessation. Outcomes were change in cigarette consumption, markers of cigarette exposure and any markers of damage or benefit to health, measured at least six months from the start of the intervention.


METHODS
We pooled trials with similar interventions and outcomes using a fixed-effect model. Other studies were summarised narratively.


RESULTS
The 13 included trials all evaluated interventions to help smokers cut down the amount smoked. Self-reported reduction in cigarettes per day (CPD) was validated by reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) levels. Most trials tested nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to assist reduction. No eligible studies evaluated the use of potentially reduced-exposure products. In a pooled analysis of eight trials, NRT significantly increased the odds of reducing CPD by 50% or more for people using nicotine gum or inhaler or a choice of product compared to placebo (n=3273, odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.55 to 2.62). Where average changes from baseline were compared for different measures, CO and cotinine consistently showed smaller reductions than CPD. Whilst the effect for NRT was significant, small numbers of people in either treatment or control group successfully sustained a reduction of 50% or more. Use of NRT also significantly increased the odds of quitting (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.47). One trial of bupropion failed to detect an effect on reduction or cessation. Four trials of different types of advice and instructions on reducing CPD did not provide clear evidence.


CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence about long-term benefit to give firm support the use of interventions intended to help smokers reduce but not quit tobacco use. Some people who do not wish to quit can be helped to cut down the number of cigarettes smoked and reduce their carbon monoxide levels by using nicotine gum or nicotine inhaler. Because the long-term health benefit of a reduction in smoking rate is unclear this application of NRT is more appropriately used as a precursor to quitting.
Stead
L F
LF
Oxford University, Department of Primary Health Care, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LF. lindsay.stead@dphpc.ox.ac.uk
Lancaster
T
T
D015415:Biomarkers / Q000097:blood; D016642:Bupropion / Q000627:therapeutic use; D002248:Carbon Monoxide / Q000097:blood; D003367:Cotinine / Q000097:blood; D006801:Humans; D009538:Nicotine / Q000627:therapeutic use; D018722:Nicotinic Agonists / Q000627:therapeutic use; D012907:Smoking / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000097:blood; D016540:Smoking Cessation / Q000379:methods; D000074606:Smoking Prevention
D015415:Biomarkers; D018722:Nicotinic Agonists; D016642:Bupropion; D009538:Nicotine; D002248:Carbon Monoxide; D003367:Cotinine