Talk:Nicotine gum

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Januvia Nguyen, Kwokt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawal and reenforcing addiction
I'm glad someone had the good sense to delete the editorial below. Clocke (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to put the following into the nicotine patch article, but it was removed within minutes:

Nicotine is a relatively easy drug to quit. As far as I know, not one person has ever died from nicotine withdrawal. Moreover, nicotine dependency is short-lived. Nicotine is completely out of the body in 48 hours. At that point, physical cravings cease. Anyone who can go 48 hours without a cigarette stands a really good chance of quitting. Nicotine is highly addictive, however. Any small amount, even from second-hand smoke, will immediately reenforce nicotine addiction - resetting the clock back to 48 hours. The nicotine patch will guarantee that the addiction clock is reset back to 48 hours every time it is used. Logic might suggest that one cannot end nicotine addiction by taking nicotine. Unlike heroine or alcohol withdrawal, you cannot die from smoking cessation. Therefore, a step-down program would appear to be unnecessary, and fails as a quitting aid in a great many cases.

Perhaps the best method to fight cravings is exercise which causes the body to produce its own endorphins. These endorphins in turn negate many of the effects of withdrawal.

It seems likely that the cigarette industry would love to convince everyone that it is impossible to quit smoking. That way, people would not ever try to quit. Short of this, the next best thing would be to convince everyone that it is very difficult to quit smoking. Then people will give-up trying more easily.

CP133 2019 Group #2 Proposed Edits
Kaycee: An additional section I think could be added is about the gums use as a combination therapy agent with other NRT for tobacco cessation and how that would be used depending in comparison to monotherapy, as well as include data of how efficacious monotherapy vs combination therapy is. Could potential turn the efficacy comparison into its own separate section as well.Ksangustinnordmeier (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How can this information be included in the article? Or is this article monitored by the advertising agencies and public relations firms for the patch sellers and the cigarette companies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ai: In the Medical uses section, I want to start off by describing stepwise how to chew the nicotine gum properly in bullet points to make it easier for readers to follow. In addition, it should include the definition of light and heavy smokers (first cigarette within 30 minutes of waking up or not), so the strength recommendation can be more informative. I would also use a more reliable source (Lexicomp or Medscape) to cite the dosage instead of Dental-professional.com website. After the usage instructions, other special notes such as warning for pregnant women, when is the best time to use the gum, etc can also be grouped together in a separate paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aivu93 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Tiffany: The section about availability mentions that there was a steep price fall in Australia in 2010, which was over 9 years ago. Consider revamping this section so that it's more organized (headers for different regions?) and doing an updated search on state of the market now. (Same with Britain and 2016). I think something to show efficacy would also be good, to demonstrate to readers that the nicotine gum works. (show efficacy in terms of relapse/remission, how efficacious it is compared to other nicotine replacement products) Kwokt (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy: In the availability section, it would be helpful to include a table of the countries in which nicotine gum is available, and this table should also be stratified by prerequisites before obtaining said gum. For example, some countries require passports over a certain dose, while others can be sold OTC. If the countries listed could include North America (USA/Canada), the EU 8 countries, and ASIA PAC, that would be helpful for the readers to discern where they can obtain these nicotine gums. Moreover, the tables can also include another column that lists the name of the brand within the native language as well, so that the readers know what to search for or can show the associates to help them locate the nicotine gum. Januvia Nguyen (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Januvia Nguyen (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

POV/sources
This article very few sources and has a very strong bias. I will do what I can but I can't write the whole thing. I would appriciate some help cleaning this up. I am not going to bother pointing out the POV issues as they are very clear. Foolishben 09:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot needs fixing
There are no sections, the text is often speculative, and there seems to be a lack of factual information. I'd like to help, but as someone quitting smoking, I came on here looking for education, so I don't have much to contribute. Pipedreambomb

I'm with you on that. I've just removed "Popular brands include Nicorette, Commit, NicoDerm, Nicotrol, and Nicotinell in the UK." from the lead/head section as Nicotinell and Nicorette were the only 2 gum products in that list. (Commit is a lozenge, NicoDerm is "the patch", Nicotrol comes as either an inhaler or a nasal spary.) They are all Nicotine replacment therapies but.... really, just sloppy. All I did was go to their websites. Syrrys 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this entry should be combined with Nicotine polacrilex, as that is the active ingredient in all these nicotine replacements -- or combined with Nicotine replacement therapy, as that is the more general topic. In any case, focusing on the gum alone is misleading; as has been pointed out, this stuff also comes in patches and lozenges. Also, focusing on (or arguing about) brands is beside the point, as there are dozens of generics on the market, and surely, it would be inappropriate (and likely impossible) to name them all. Clocke (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
The first paragraph under "Risks" is biased and non-encyclopedic.

Must be neutralized.

Agree with neutrality problem
The article strongly understates the benifits of replacing smoking with (even chronic) nicotine gum use. Has it been verified that none of the (thousands of) other compounds in cigarette smoke are addictive, really? Seems unlikely. Meanwhile of course, its abundantly clear that some of these compounds ARE carcinogenic and that cigarette smoking causes emphysema and heart disease.

Disagree
If it 'strongly understates' the benefits of replacement therapy, then it also strongly understates the poor efficacy of such therapies. Few who use gum will be non-smokers after a year or more (UK Gov figures)
 * But very few who try try to give up smoking without it will be non-smokers after a year or more too.195.195.109.138 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that and wish to dispute the references both to the gum being a gateway to oral tobacco use (this is absurd and there is no evidence to back it up) as well as the reference to smokeless tobacco as hazardous. Current evidence indicates that (1) smokeless tobacco and pharmaceutical nicotine sources are relatively similar when it comes to health risks and (2) anything that replaces smoking is an improvement. At some later date, I'll have a go at editing the article up however though I know quite a bit about relative health risks I don't know quite enough about this product to do a good job on it. Pbergen1 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicotine content relative to cigarettes in first paragraph
It should be relative to the amount of nicotine absorbed when smoking a cigarette; as a cigarette contains more nicotine that is burnt off. I don't really want to edit it in a misleading way so can someone else edit it? Sources; other wikipedia articles on nicotine and nicotine poisoning ('As shown by the physical data, free base nicotine will burn at a temperature below its boiling point, and its vapors will combust at 308 K (35 °C; 95 °F) in air despite a low vapor pressure. Because of this, most of the nicotine is burned when a cigarette is smoked; however, enough is inhaled to cause pharmacological effects.' and 'Sixty milligrams of nicotine, the amount in about five cigarettes' in the articles respectively). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.51.155 (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Gum Disease Section
So there was a section saying that there was (fairly baseless in my albeit completely inxperienced opinion) "speculation" that prolonged use of nicotine gum may leaad to gum disease, without referencing anyone who speculated this, but instead a citation to a paper showing that there was no link between nicotine gum and oral health. I removed this section, but if anyone wants to look for conflicting evidence feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.19.110 (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

source of nicotine?
Where do the manufacturers get the nicotine which they put into the gum? Is it synthesized through some industrial process? Or is it extracted from tobacco plants? If so, is it fair to say that purchasing nicotine replacement therapy products support tobacco farmers (even to a small degree)? Thanks140.180.254.221 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 1 Peer Review
I believe that Group 2 improved the article by elaborating on the already provided information in the article and thus making it more detailed, especially from a pharmacological perspective. By doing so, they made the article more informative for the reader. However, with that being said, I believe that there could have been more citations with each piece of information provided. It appears that they did not completely achieve their goals for improvement; for instance, one citation that a team member had intended to replace with a more reliable source still remains in the References section. I think that more primary sources could be referenced throughout the article with additional information provided. Furthermore, not all of the intended edits were yet made: the "Availability" table appears to be unfinished, and the "Availability" section as a whole could still use a lot of improvement in terms of updated information and organization. I think that the group has done well at improving the article overall, and the group's edits thus far reflect a neutral point of view. Hollycly (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As I investigate the edits from group 2, it is clear that they are keeping Wikipedia’s guiding framework in the back of their mind as they reshape this article. Some members of this group are clearly very detail-oriented as evidenced by their addition of pristine tables that emphasize key aspects of the drug including availability and dosage. As a reader, I am a big fan of tables as they allow me to skim through the article and conveniently obtain important information on the drug without wasting time. I was also impressed with this group’s literature-based modifications to the article, as they presented key findings from reliable studies (with large sample sizes) in their edits. In my opinion, the information this group has edited in so far, has been very relevant and useful. Despite the fantastic work mentioned above, there is still work to do for my colleagues in group 2. I look forward to the previously proposed updates involving comparing efficacy of monotherapy to combo therapy; I would even suggest briefly comparing these options to other popular NRT options (i.e. nicotine patch) on the market. Another table could be helpful for this! I also think this article could use some new headers/formatting; the special populations section only discusses pregnancy related complications, so maybe change the header to “pregnancy-related complications” or add more special populations. I like Ai’s idea of replacing the Dental-professional.com website with a more reliable source, and I might even recommend citing a reliable piece of primary literature on nicotine patches and pregnancy. So far, I don’t see much evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation, as these group members seem to be very diligent when it comes to citing their sources. Upon reviewing the original sources of information, I am impressed with how these editors adapted the information from their sources into their own style and to fit the Wikipedia article. I want to highly encourage this group to continue to provide information from reliable studies and to continue to be cognizant of how they are citing their sources. Wahib EadWahibsGardenofEADen (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Group 2 has contributed to the Nicotine Gum article by providing some edits to clarify the correct use, mechanism and dosing of this product. For example, there was a stepwise addition of how to chew the nicotine gum and a dosing regimen from the FDA included. They added citations for this dosing section, as well. From their edits, they clarified what else nicotine gum can be used in combination with. Overall, I think that this group made substantial edits from a pharmacological perspective that other editors might not have provided. They provided useful information that is easy to understand, especially in table forms. In terms of achieving all of their goals for improvement, I think they made a majority of the edits they talked about in their Talk page such as information about combination therapy, stepwise instructions on use, dosage, and a table of availability in different countries. I think that the table with country availability and restrictions needs citations for each specific country to make it reliable information. I felt that the dosing had the most adequate citations. The “direction for use” section needs to have more citations to validate the information. I think that the draft submission has a neutral point of view. They only made edits that are information in nature. No opinion or hyperbole was included.Rashleynepomuceno (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

After reading through the changes made to the Wikipedia page, I believe that Group 2 has substantially improved the article with additional detailed information. They added relevant information such as medical use, special population section, dose regimen with a table, reputable reference, and availability policy. The group achieved most of their overall goals for improvement. Some of their goals such as efficacy in terms of relapse/remission, comparison of different nicotine replacement products are still remained uncompleted. Also, in the availability section, the old information such as steep price fall in Australia in 2010 is still remained in the article. Their edits are formatted consistently with Wikipedia’s Manuel of style. The each section is recognizable. All the edits reflect a neutral point of view. Qingni-Liu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Wikipedia for the Medical Editor
— Assignment last updated by SnacksAtParties (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am a fourth-yr medical student at the University of Illinois College of Medicine - Rockford. I plan to revise this article over the next three wks as part of my "Wikipedia for the Medical Editor" elective rotation. Below is a brief overview of elements I'd like to add/expand upon; things are subject to change as I begin drafting (certain information may end up in different sections, etc.), but any general feedback is appreciated.

'''1) LEAD (save for last)

2) MEDICAL USES

a) what is it: mention that it is short-acting NRT for tobacco cessation. used alone or in conjunction with other forms of NRT, often a long-acting

b) how it works: chewing releases nicotine, which is absorbed through oral mucosa. requires repeated use throughout day; more variable nicotine levels than patch, therefore requires more instruction for correct use

- instruction for proper chewing technique ("chew and park")

c)monotherapy vs combination therapy

- include research regarding efficacy of mono vs combo, efficacy compared to other forms of NRT

3) DOSING

- available doses, and cigarette equivalent

- determined by how soon first cigarette is smoked upon awakening

- at least one piece/1-2h, and PRN with urge; up to 24 pieces/day for first 6wks; tx duration 3mos; etc.

4) SAFETY CONCERNS

a) side effects

- vasoconstriction

- due to excess nicotine release from vigorous chewing

- list side effects, explain how related to vasoconstriction

b) google search for nicotine gum revealed commonly asked qs (eg, how long can you safely chew, is nicotine gum hard on your liver --> consider addressing these qs in this section)

5) SPECIAL POPULATIONS

a) pregnancy-related

b) TMJ and oral health

6) AVAILABILITY

- OTC vs prescription, cost, common brands in different countries; consider keeping chart format

7) SEE ALSO

- link list of other short-acting NRT, nicotine replacement therapy

204.93.126.25 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)