Article Text


Does over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy improve smokers’ life expectancy?
  1. William F Lawrencea,
  2. Stevens S Smithb,
  3. Timothy B Bakerb,
  4. Michael C Fioreb
  1. aCancer Clinical and Economic Outcomes Core, Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA, bCenter for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin
  1. Dr WF Lawrence, Cancer Clinical and Economic Outcomes Core, Lombardi Cancer Center, 2233 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 430, Washington, DC 20007, USA;lawrencw{at}


OBJECTIVE To determine the public health benefits of making nicotine replacement therapy available without prescription, in terms of number of quitters and life expectancy.

DESIGN A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the policy of over-the-counter (OTC) availability of nicotine replacement therapy with that of prescription (℞) availability for the adult smoking population in the United States.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Long-term (six-month) quit rates, life expectancy, and smoking attributable mortality (SAM) rates.

RESULTS OTC availability of nicotine replacement therapy would result in 91 151 additional successful quitters over a six-month period, and a cumulative total of approximately 1.7 million additional quitters over 25 years. All-cause SAM would decrease by 348 deaths per year and 2940 deaths per year at six months and five years, respectively. Relative to ℞ nicotine replacement therapy availability, OTC availability would result in an average gain in life expectancy across the entire adult smoking population of 0.196 years per smoker. In sensitivity analyses, the benefits of OTC availability were evident across a wide range of changes in baseline parameters.

CONCLUSIONS Compared with ℞ availability of nicotine replacement therapy, OTC availability would result in more successful quitters, fewer smoking-attributable deaths, and increased life expectancy for current smokers.

  • smoking cessation
  • nicotine replacement therapy
  • over-the-counter sales
  • decision analysis

Statistics from

Smoking cessation and prevention strategies hold tremendous potential to improve public health.1 Smoking-attributable mortality is now estimated at more than 400 000 deaths per year and the health benefits of quitting at any age have been well documented.2 Although over 70% of smokers would like to quit smoking,3 less than 5% of self-quitters successfully stop smoking for six months or more,4 a figure considerably lower than the 10–30% quit rates produced by smoking cessation programmes using prescription (℞) nicotine replacement products (transdermal patches or polacrilex gum).5-7Although smoking cessation programmes are more efficacious than self-quitting, considerable evidence suggests that most smokers are reluctant to participate in cessation programmes.8-10This suggests that making nicotine replacement products available outside formal cessation programmes may increase smoking cessation rates among American smokers. One strategy to make nicotine replacement products more available to self-quitters is to make them available over the counter (OTC).11 12

In July 1996, the FDA first approved over-the-counter sales of one brand of nicotine patch.13 The patches appear to be a popular cessation aid; by the end of 1996, one brand of OTC nicotine patch, Nicoderm CQ, had sold over 3.2 million units (unpublished data, SmithKline Beecham, Inc.). Use of nicotine replacement therapy has been estimated to increase by over 150% since nicotine patches and nicotine gum have become available without prescription.14 An accurate estimate of the potential public health benefits of the policy of making nicotine replacement available without prescription depends upon formal analysis that models the anticipated benefit based upon specific, empirically derived assumptions. The current study used decision-analytic techniques to compare the public health impact of prescription with over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy availability. The analyses used data on the estimated percentage of American smokers who would quit successfully per year, and on estimated reductions in smoking-attributable mortality, derived from sources available before nicotine replacement was available OTC in the United States, or from post-marketing surveillance after nicotine replacement was available without prescription.


We constructed a simulation model15 using a computer spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel for Windows version 5.0, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington) to compare the public health impact of making nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) by transdermal patch or by nicotine polacrilex gum available over the counter (OTC scenario) with the practice of prescription-only availability (℞ scenario). We used data from non-prescription availability Nicoderm patch studies conducted by Alza Corporation as proxy for over-the-counter nicotine replacement in general, due to the availability of over-the-counter data for this particular product. Outcomes determined for both the OTC and ℞ scenarios included: (a) the total number of smokers who quit at six months; (b) overall smoking-attributable mortality; and (c) life expectancy of an average smoker using state-transition (Markov) modelling.


Modelling required estimates derived from diverse sources. Amedline literature search was conducted for relevant literature on model parameters. Whenever possible, effectiveness data was preferentially chosen over efficacy data. Population estimates were based on 1990 census data.16 In addition, several national surveys were used to provide population-based estimates, including the 1990 and 1992 National Health Interview Surveys,17 18(NHIS) to provide estimates of smoking prevalence and smoking cessation attempts, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey–I (NHANES–I) and the NHANES Epidemiologic Followup Survey2to provide the probability of smoking relapse.

Estimates of the rate of use of nicotine replacement in the OTC scenario were based on marketing surveillance of nicotine replacement therapy use, performed by Shiffman and colleagues.14 These investigators determined the ratio of use of nicotine products for non-prescription availability compared with prescription availability. We used this ratio multiplied by our estimates for prescription use of nicotine replacement therapy to calculate the rates of use in the over-the-counter setting.

Smoking cessation rates for NRT quitters under both scenarios were derived from a prospective trial of simulated non-prescription nicotine patch use.19 As noted, we use nicotine patch data as a proxy for nicotine replacement therapy in general, due to the availability of the data on over-the-counter use for this form of replacement. A prospective cohort study was conducted using 2367 participants recruited from public locations such as shopping malls; participants purchased patches at estimated retail price, and were followed up to determine quit rates. Participants lost to follow up in this study were considered to have relapsed. We assume for this analysis that the six-month quit rates for smokers using nicotine replacement was equivalent in the OTC and ℞ scenarios. Post-marketing surveillance using retrospective cohort data on prescription nicotine patch use19 suggests that the six-month quit rate may actually be lower in the prescription setting. Thus, this assumption is a conservative one which will bias the analysis in favour of the prescription scenario by underestimating the over-the-counter public health benefit. We examine changes in this assumption in sensitivity analysis.

Whenever possible, age-specific and sex-specific data were used in the model. All quit rates are based upon self-reported continuous quit rates which were the most consistently available data. Table 1 provides a summary of parameters used for the baseline case for the model. (Parameter estimates stratified by age and sex from these studies are available in a technical report available on request from the authors.)

Table 1

Model parameters


A decision tree was constructed (figure 1) to estimate the number of current smokers who would quit long-term (six months) in the OTC and ℞ scenarios for each age and sex stratum. In both scenarios, a smoker has a chance of making a quit attempt using nicotine replacement therapy, a chance of making a quit attempt without nicotine replacement, and a chance of not making a quit attempt. We assume for the baseline analysis that the total chance of making a quit attempt by any method is the same for both scenarios. We also assume that any patterns in changes of use of other smoking cessation methods, such as behavioural counseling, would not significantly affect cessation rates for smokers quitting without nicotine replacement in either scenario of nicotine replacement availability. Both of these assumptions were examined in sensitivity analysis.

Figure 1

Decision tree for determining the public health benefits of the two scenarios of availability of nicotine replacement therapy. Public health benefits shown in the tree include the number of quit attempts and the number of long-term (six-month) quits. NRT = nicotine replacement therapy, OTC = over the counter, ℞ = prescription.

Markov state-transition models20 were created to estimate the life expectancy of an average person in each stratum. Each model consisted of five states, representing: current smokers; those quitting for a year or less; those who have quit for one to two years; long-term quitters; and those who have died. These state transition models represent each smoker in the simulation as being in one of the five mutually exclusive states for any particular one-year period. Probabilities were calculated for a person in one state (for example, long-term quitter) to transition to any other state (such as smoking) in the following year. The three quit states allow representation of a lower relapse rate for longer term quitters (more than two years) compared with more recent quitters.2 Mortality for current and former smokers was stratified by age and sex,1 18 21however, data were not available to calculate this parameter for duration of cessation, so rates are independent of duration of abstinence for former smokers.

For each age and sex stratum, the initial distribution of cohort members across the states was determined by the outcome of the decision tree for that stratum. The model calculated life expectancy until the surviving members of the cohort reached age 100. Transition probabilities for the Markov models were age and sex dependent.



Major outcomes of the analysis are shown in table 2. Key findings are that making nicotine therapy available over the counter would result in approximately 1.1 million additional smokers attempting to quit using nicotine replacement therapy in the first six months, and an estimated 91 151 additional smokers would have quit at the end of six months. The number of additional quitters from the current cohort of smokers would continue to increase over time to a maximum of 1.7 million additional quitters at 25 years in the OTC scenario compared with the ℞ scenario (figure 2).

Table 2

Baseline results

Figure 2

Reduction in the number of smokers in the over-the-counter (OTC) scenario compared with the prescription (℞) scenario, over time. The reduction is based on the difference in current smokers between the two scenarios, adjusted to the population size of the OTC scenario, for the original cohort of 47 million adult smokers.

Reclassifying nicotine therapy as non-prescription would also have a positive impact on life expectancy. Across the total cohort of more than 47 million smokers (including continuing smokers and eventual quitters), the average smoker could be expected to live 0.20 years (2.4 months) longer in the over-the-counter scenario than in the prescription scenario (table 2). The impact of permanently quitting smokers on gain in life expectancy on successful quittersis presented in table 3. On average, each of these new quitters will gain an average of 4.4 years of life compared with smokers who never quit. Thus, the average gain in life expectancy represents a large life expectancy gain that accrues to the small percentage of smokers who would quit in the non-prescription availability setting but not in the prescription setting.

Table 3

Gain in life expectancy3-150 for smokers who successfully quit smoking

Based on the proportion of quitters at six months in the OTC scenario compared with that in the ℞ scenario, we estimated a reduction in the all-cause, smoking-attributable mortality rate of 348 deaths per year. At five years, our model predicts a decrease in the all-cause, smoking-attributable mortality rate of 2940 deaths per year for the over-the-counter scenario, due to the increased number of quitters in this scenario compared with the prescription scenario (table 2). For the original cohort of 47 million smokers, this gap between the smoking attributable mortality in the non-prescription setting and the prescription setting would continue to widen for approximately 30 years.


Results of the sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model results were robust for a wide range of changes in the baseline parameters (table 4). The results were most sensitive to changes in the parameter values of the relative chance of making a quit attempt by any method, and the relative probabilities of a successful quit at six months for the OTC and ℞ scenarios. If, for example, the smokers are 10% more likely to attempt to quit by any method in the OTC scenario compared with the ℞ scenario, then the gain in number of quits at six months for the OTC scenario increases by 56% over baseline, and the gain in life expectancy for the OTC scenario increases by 43%. Conversely, if either the chance of a successful quit at six months is either twice what we predict for the ℞ scenario, or a half of what we predict for the OTC scenario, then the ℞ scenario has more quitters and a better life expectancy.

Table 4

Sensitivity analyses

Threshold values from the sensitivity analyses are also shown in table4. Threshold values are the values of the model parameters at which there is no longer a life expectancy benefit for smokers in the non-prescription scenario compared with the prescription scenario. For example, if smokers were only 79% as likely (or less) to attempt to quit by any method in the OTC scenario compared with the ℞ scenario, then the OTC scenario would not have a life expectancy advantage.


Smoking is a major source of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Thus, policies that even modestly improve smoking cessation rates have the potential to yield large public health benefits. In this analysis, we show that making nicotine replacement therapy using transdermal patches and nicotine gum available over the counter rather than prescription-only would result in a large increase in the number of successful quitters each year, a reduction in smoking-attributable mortality, and an increase in the life expectancy of smokers. The gain in life expectancy for an average smoker in the over-the-counter setting is 0.196 years; in comparison, the gain in screening 40-year-old men and 40-year-old women for hypertension would be an increase in life expectancy of 0.03 years and 0.01 years, respectively.22

Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that the over-the-counter use has a relative benefit compared with prescription use under a wide variety of assumptions. Perhaps the area of greatest uncertainty within the analysis is the six-month effectiveness data for both prescription and non-prescription nicotine replacement therapy. Data are available on NRT-assisted quit rates5; these represent primarilyefficacy results of clinical trials. In contrast, the analyses in this model used data estimating effectivenessof nicotine replacement under the OTC scenario. Surveillance data suggest that effectiveness of prescription-only patch use may have a 40% lower six-month success rate than we use for the baseline model.19 Potential quitters willing to use NRT as an over-the-counter medication may, on average, have fewer or less severe factors for relapse.23 In contrast, smokers who seek cessation services (including NRT) through healthcare providers may, on average, include people with a greater number or level of relapse risk factors.10 If the six-month cessation rate for prescription use nicotine therapy is lower than we have estimated, then the actual benefits would be greater than we have calculated. Even if the six-month cessation rates for non-prescription nicotine replacement therapy use are 20% worse than we have estimated, and that of the prescription nicotine replacement use 20% better than estimated, our model still predicts a small benefit for the non-prescription availability setting.

There are several caveats that should be considered when evaluating our results. First, there are no randomised clinical trial data linking NRT-based smoking cessation programmes to overall reduction in mortality. Next, we do not explicitly address the issue of adverse effects of nicotine replacement. Since the analysis only addresses mortality associated with smoking, we did not include adverse effects because death directly attributable to NRT therapy itself is an exceedingly rare event, and thus would not change the results of the analysis. Other adverse effects of nicotine replacement therapy—for example, skin irritation from the transdermal patch—tend to be transitory and produce little impact on overall health. Finally, we do not address the economic impact of making nicotine replacement available without prescription.

Overall, we have found that making nicotine replacement therapy available without prescription would result in substantial public health benefit. By implementing a policy to make nicotine patches and gum available as over-the-counter medications for smoking cessation, the number of current smokers would significantly decrease over time, and smoking-attributable mortality would decline as well.


This study was funded by a grant from SmithKline Beecham. Dr Lawrence is supported in part by Contract DAMD 17–96-C-6069, “Breast Cancer Support Contract,” from the Department of the Army. Dr Fiore has done consulting and public speaking for the following pharmaceutical companies: SmithKline Beecham, Ciba-Geigy, McNeil, and GlaxoWellcome.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 23a.
  25. 24.
View Abstract

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.