# Exenatide for Smoking Cessation: Five Subgroups From One Pilot Trial | This GLP How a secondary analysis of a pilot trial generated five answers to who a drug works for, why posterior probabilities are not significance, and what that means for any 'works best for' claim. Publisher: This GLP Editorial Team Canonical: https://thisglp.com/research/glp1-smoking-cessation-subgroups Updated: 2026-09-18 Published: 2026-09-16 [← Research](https://thisglp.com/research) Evidence # Exenatide for Smoking Cessation: Five Subgroups From One Pilot Trial A small trial found exenatide added to a nicotine patch helped smokers quit. A secondary analysis then found five different groups it helped most, which is what exploratory subgroup analysis reliably produces. [This GLP Editorial Team](https://thisglp.com/about)September 20265 min readUpdated September 2026 Posterior probability of benefit, by subgroup · smoked >20 a day · 81.7% · no prediabetes · 76% · no obesity · 94.4% · no depression symptoms · 91.2% · one genotype · 88.6% · Posterior probabilities, from a secondary analysis of a pilot trial. **Research, not medical advice.** This GLP is independent and educational. Nothing here is a substitute for individualized care from a licensed clinician, and reading it creates no doctor–patient relationship. Talk to your own provider before starting, stopping, or changing any medication, peptide, or therapy. See our [methodology](https://thisglp.com/methodology) and [terms](https://thisglp.com/terms). ## Key takeaways - A pilot trial found that adding exenatide to a nicotine patch improved smoking abstinence compared with the patch alone. - A secondary analysis then asked who it worked for, and found five different answers. - Benefit appeared stronger in heavier smokers, in people without prediabetes, in people without obesity, in people without depression symptoms, and in carriers of one genotype. - ⛔ These are posterior probabilities rather than p-values, and they come from questions asked after the data existed. - The authors' own conclusion is that larger prospective investigations are needed to confirm and extend the findings. This page is not really about smoking. It is about what happens when a small positive trial is asked who it worked for, because the answer is almost always “several different groups” and that answer is almost always less informative than it looks — a cousin of the problem in [what happens outside a trial](https://thisglp.com/research/glp1-weight-loss-in-ordinary-care). ## What the original trial found In a pilot trial, exenatide added to a nicotine patch improved smoking abstinence compared with the patch alone [\[1\]](https://thisglp.com/research/glp1-smoking-cessation-subgroups#ref-1). That is the primary result, and it is the one with a design built to support it. ## What the secondary analysis found Exploring baseline characteristics, the analysis reported stronger benefit among participants smoking more than twenty cigarettes a day (posterior probability 81.7%), among those without prediabetes (76.0%), among those without obesity (94.4%), among those with no or minimal depression symptoms (91.2%), and among carriers of one genotype at a nicotinic receptor gene (88.6%). Read quickly, that is five findings. Read carefully, it is five ways of dividing one small sample, each producing a smaller group than the trial was sized for. Two words that do most of the work ⛔ _Secondary_ means the questions were asked after the data existed. A prespecified subgroup is a hypothesis; an exploratory one is a search, and a search through enough baseline characteristics will find differences in data with none. ⛔ _Pilot_ means the trial was sized to establish feasibility rather than to answer these questions. Splitting such a sample five ways produces groups too small to settle anything, which is why the authors call for larger prospective investigation rather than presenting a patient profile. ⛔ And the numbers are posterior probabilities — statements of belief under a model — not p-values. Describing an 81.7% posterior probability as statistical significance would be a category error. ## Why this pattern matters beyond one trial Because subgroup findings are the raw material of marketing. “Works best for people who...” is a persuasive sentence, and it can be sourced to a real analysis of a real trial while resting on a group of a few dozen people identified after the fact. The same caution applies to every claim about who these drugs suit. When a result is presented as applying especially to some readers, the question is whether that group was named before the data arrived or after — which is a version of the reading discipline in [what a composite endpoint hides](https://thisglp.com/research/tirzepatide-heart-failure-composite) and [what a comparator can and cannot tell you](https://thisglp.com/research/do-glp1-drugs-cause-gout). ## What is actually established That a GLP-1 drug added to a nicotine patch improved abstinence in one pilot trial. That is a genuine and interesting result, and it is the only one here with a design behind it. Everything after it is a direction for the next study. None of this is available to buy for smoking cessation, and no seller tracked on this site prescribes for it — the same distance between a trial result and a purchasable product that runs through [what the semaglutide trials are worth](https://thisglp.com/research/semaglutide-cochrane-review). ## Frequently asked Does a GLP-1 drug help people stop smoking? In one pilot trial, adding exenatide to a nicotine patch improved abstinence compared with the patch alone. That is the primary result and the only one with a design built to support it. Who did it work best for? The secondary analysis reported five different answers — heavier smokers, people without prediabetes, without obesity, without depression symptoms, and carriers of one genotype. Five ways of dividing one small sample is not five findings. Are those percentages significance levels? No. They are posterior probabilities — statements of belief under a model — and describing them as statistical significance would be a category error. Can I buy this for smoking cessation? No. It is not an approved use and no seller tracked on this site prescribes for it. ## Sources 1. \[1\] Yammine L, et al. (2025). Exploring Predictors of Treatment Response to GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for Smoking Cessation Nicotine & Tobacco Research. [PMID 39780397](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39780397/) ## Where to get it ### Best GLP-1 injections Every injectable seller we can verify, with the price each one publishes and an honest read of what the trials measured. [Compare providers →](https://thisglp.com/best/compounded-semaglutide) ## More in Evidence - [ 150 minutes · Weekly activity goal · 2 days · Muscle strengthening · Adapt · Symptoms and ability ### Exercise on Ozempic: Building Strength Without Ignoring Symptoms ](https://thisglp.com/research/exercise-on-ozempic) - [ STEP 1, semaglutide 2.4 mg vs placebo, % change at 68 weeks · LDL cholesterol · −2.5% vs +1.3% · Total cholesterol · −3.3% vs +0.1% · HDL cholesterol · +5.2% vs +1.4% · Triglycerides · −21.9% vs −7.3% · Wegovy label, Table 13. Adults without diabetes. Ozempic doses are lower. ### Does Ozempic Lower Cholesterol? What the Lipid Results in the Trials Show ](https://thisglp.com/research/does-ozempic-lower-cholesterol) - [ Where the insulin reduction came from, units per day · week 4 · 13.4 total · week 26 · 21.9 · the drug itself · the weight loss · The drug’s own contribution barely moved: 11.1 then 11.4. · Everything added between weeks 4 and 26 came from weight. ### Does Semaglutide Help Type 1 Diabetes? What Two Small Trials Found ](https://thisglp.com/research/semaglutide-in-type-1-diabetes)