Electronic cigarettes for adults with tobacco dependence enrolled in a tobacco treatment program: A pilot study

A qualitative study of using nicotine products for smoking cessation after discharge from residential drug and alcohol treatment in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco smoking is highly prevalent among alcohol and other drugs (AOD) service clients and, despite interest in quitting, abstinence is rarely sustained. Nicotine products may assist after discharge from residential treatment services, but little is known about client receptivity to them. This study examined AOD withdrawal service clients' experiences of two types of nicotine products for smoking cessation post-discharge, combination nicotine replacement therapy (cNRT) and nicotine vaping products (NVP).

METHODS

We held semi-structured telephone interviews with 31 Australian AOD service clients in a clinical trial of a 12-week smoking cessation intervention using Quitline support plus cNRT or NVP delivered post-discharge from a smoke-free residential service. We asked about health and social factors, nicotine cravings, Quitline experience, and barriers and facilitators to cNRT or NVP, then thematically analysed data.

RESULTS

cNRT and NVP were described by participants as feasible and acceptable for smoking cessation. For most participants, cost limited cNRT access post study, as did difficulty navigating NVP prescription access. Quitline support was valued, but not consistently used, with participants noting low assistance with NVP-facilitated cessation. Participants considered both cessation methods acceptable and socially supported, and sought information on decreasing nicotine use via NVP.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

AOD service clients highly valued receiving cNRT or NVP with behavioural support for smoking reduction or abstinence. Both interventions were acceptable to service clients. Findings suggest a potential need to examine both whether NVP use should be permitted in this context, and guidance on the individual suitability of cNRT or NVP.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Longer-term use of electronic cigarettes when provided as a stop smoking aid: Systematic review with meta-analyses

Moderate certainty evidence supports use of nicotine electronic cigarettes to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. However, there is less certainty regarding how long people continue to use e-cigarettes after smoking cessation attempts. We set out to synthesise data on the proportion of people still using e-cigarettes or other study products at 6 months or longer in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. We updated Cochrane searches (November 2021). For the first time, we meta-analysed prevalence of continued e-cigarette use among individuals allocated to e-cigarette conditions, and among those individuals who had successfully quit smoking. We updated meta-analyses comparing proportions continuing product use among individuals allocated to use nicotine e-cigarettes and other treatments. We included 19 studies (n = 7787). The pooled prevalence of continued e-cigarette use at 6 months or longer was 54% (95% CI: 46% to 61%, I2 86%, N = 1482) in participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions. Of participants who had quit combustible cigarettes overall 70% were still using e-cigarettes at six months or longer (95% CI: 53% to 82%, I2 73%, N = 215). Heterogeneity in direction of effect precluded meta-analysis comparing long-term use of nicotine e-cigarettes with NRT. More people were using nicotine e-cigarettes at longest follow-up compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, but CIs included no difference (risk ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.41, n = 601). The levels of continued e-cigarette use observed may reflect the success of e-cigarettes as a quitting tool. Further research is needed to establish drivers of variation in and implications of continued use of e-cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of abrupt versus gradual smoking cessation in combination with vaporised nicotine products for people receiving alcohol and other drug treatment

BACKGROUND

Vaporised nicotine products (VNPs) may be a potential quit smoking strategy. Most research has permitted participants to use VNPs ad libitum. This is the first study to examine combining the use of a VNP with a gradual or abrupt cessation guideline. This study aims to test the potential feasibility of a quit smoking strategy (abrupt verses gradual cessation) in combination with vaporised nicotine products among people in AOD treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial between April 2018 and July 2019. Participants were recruited from AOD programs located within one area health service in Australia. Participants were provided with two VNPs, a 12-week supply of nicotine e-liquid and randomised to either the abrupt (assigned a quit date the day they were provided their VNP) or gradual quit smoking strategy (reduce baseline number of cigarettes per day by 25% over a 4 week period), no further behavioral support was provided. Feasibility was assessed through successful recruitment rates, retention, and adherence to study conditions. Participant perceived helpfulness and satisfaction assessed acceptability.

RESULTS

Among 80 interested individuals, 66 were eligible and consented (100% recruitment rate). From the 66 participants that consented and completed the baseline survey, 60 received the intervention assigned at a 1:1 ratio with 30 in the gradual cessation and 30 in the abrupt cessation group. Retention was 86.4% (n = 52) at 12-weeks post-intervention commencement. Ninety-six percent (n = 25) of participants in the gradual and 95.8% (n = 23) of participants in the abrupt group were using the VNPs at 12-weeks (p = 0.66). There was no difference in adherence to the assigned quit plan between gradual cessation 44% (n = 11) and abrupt cessation 71% (n = 17) groups (p = 0.117). Median perceived helpfulness of VNPs was high for both gradual (10/10) and abrupt (9/10) groups (p = 0.813). Similarly, median perceived satisfaction of VNPs was high for both gradual (9 /10) and abrupt (8/10) groups (p = 0.414).

CONCLUSIONS

AOD participants found an intervention that involved VNPs to be satisfying and helpful. Future large scale trials are needed to elucidate whether a gradual or abrupt cessation guideline is more beneficial in main a quit attempt with a VNP.

Investigating the effect of e-cigarette use on quitting smoking in adults aged 25 years or more using the PATH study

Background: The evidence on harms and benefits of e-cigarettes partly concerns whether their use encourages smokers to quit.  We addressed this using data from the nationally representative PATH study, with detailed accounting for potential confounding variables.

Methods: We considered adults aged 25+.  Our original analyses, reported in version 1 of this paper, used data for Waves 1 to 3, separate analyses considering Waves 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and 1 to 3.  These related baseline ever e-cigarette use (or e-product use at Wave 2) to quitting at follow-up, adjusting for confounders derived from 55 candidates.  Sensitivity analyses omitted ever other product users, linked quitting to current e-cigarette use, and used values of some predictors modified using follow-up data.  Additional analyses used data for Waves 1 to 4, separately considering sustained, delayed and temporary quitting during Waves 1 to 3, 2 to 4 and 1 to 4.  Sensitivity analyses considered 30-day quitting, restricted attention to smokers attempting to quit, and considered ever smokeless tobacco or snus use.

Results: In the original analyses, unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) of quitting smoking for ever e-cigarette use were 1.29 (95% CI 1.01-1.66), 1.52 (1.26-1.83) and 1.47 (1.19-1.82) for the Wave 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and 1 to 3 analyses.  These reduced after adjustment, to 1.23 (0.94-1.61), 1.51 (1.24-1.85) and 1.39 (1.11-1.74).  Quitting rates remained elevated in users in all sensitivity analyses.  The additional analyses found associations of e-cigarette use with sustained, delayed and temporary quitting, associations little affected by considering 30-day quitting, and only slightly reduced restricting attention to quit attempters.  Ever use of smokeless tobacco or snus also predicted increased quitting.  

Conclusions: As does most evidence from clinical trials, other analyses of PATH, and other epidemiological studies, our results suggest using e-cigarettes helps adult smokers to quit.

Estimating the reduction in US mortality if cigarettes were largely replaced by e-cigarettes

BACKGROUND

Recent estimates indicated substantially replacing cigarettes by e-cigarettes would, during 2016-2100, reduce US deaths and life-years lost (millions) by 6.6 and 86.7 (Optimistic Scenario) and 1.6 and 20.8 (Pessimistic). To provide additional insight we use alternative modelling based on a shorter period (1991-2040), four main smoking-associated diseases, deaths aged 30-79 years, and a full product history. We consider variations in: assumed effective dose of e-cigarettes versus cigarettes (F); their relative quitting rate (Q); proportions smoking after 10 years (X); and initiation rate (I) of vaping, relative to smoking.

METHODS

We set F = 0.05, X = 5%, Q = 1.0 and I = 1.0 (Main Scenario) and F = 0.4, X = 10%, Q = 0.5 and I = 1.5 (Pessimistic Scenario). Sensitivity Analyses varied Main Scenario parameters singly; F from 0 to 0.4, X 0.01% to 15%, and Q and I 0.5 to 1.5. To allow comparison with prior work, individuals cannot be dual users, re-initiate, or switch except from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.

RESULTS

Main Scenario reductions were 2.52 and 26.23 million deaths and life-years lost; Pessimistic Scenario reductions were 0.76 and 8.31 million. These were less than previously, due to the more limited age-range and follow-up, and restriction to four diseases. Reductions in deaths (millions) varied most for X, from 3.22 (X = 0.01%) to 1.31 (X = 15%), and F, 2.74 (F = 0) to 1.35 (F = 0.4). Varying Q or I had little effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial reductions in deaths and life-years lost were observed even under pessimistic assumptions. Estimates varied most for X and F. These findings supplement literature indicating e-cigarettes can importantly impact health challenges from smoking.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Effectiveness and Safety Profile of Alternative Tobacco and Nicotine Products for Smoking Reduction and Cessation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Alternative tobacco and nicotine products such as electronic cigarettes (EC), smokeless tobacco, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) are currently being assessed as options in tobacco harm reduction due to their potential role in smoking reduction and smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE

To provide the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of various alternative tobacco and nicotine products for smoking reduction and cessation.

METHODS

A systematic review using databases from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 2020 to identify eligible experimental and observational studies assessing the use of alternative tobacco and nicotine products on smoking reduction and smoking cessation and the safety of these products. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and ROBINS-I tools were used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Results were described through a narrative synthesis of the evidence.

RESULTS

From 1955 retrieved references, 44 studies (31 randomized controlled trials/RCTs and 13 prospective cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Twenty-nine studies were assessing EC, one study evaluated heat-not-burn (HNB) product, five studies were focused on snus, and nine studies assessed NRT in the form of nicotine patch, gum, etc. The overall results suggested that alternative tobacco and nicotine products in the form of EC, snus, and NRT can moderately reduce daily cigarette consumption and has potential to assist smoking cessation attempts, with fewer adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggested that alternative tobacco and nicotine products have a potential role in assisting smoking reduction and cessation, highlighting their role in the tobacco harm reduction approach. Further studies should focus on investigating long-term outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of alternative tobacco and nicotine products to better inform smoking reduction/cessation policy.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020205830.

Effectiveness of Electronic Cigarettes in Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Reports of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes (ECs) for smoking cessation vary across different studies making implementation recommendations hard to attain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the current evidence regarding effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation.

METHODS

PubMed, PsycInfo, and Embase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing nicotine ECs with non-nicotine ECs or with established smoking cessation interventions (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] and or counseling) published between 1 January 2014 and 27 June 2020. Data from eligible studies were extracted and used for random-effects meta-analyses (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019141414).

RESULTS

The search yielded 13 950 publications with 12 studies being identified as eligible for systematic review (N = 8362) and 9 studies for random-effects meta-analyses (range: 30-6006 participants). The proportion of smokers achieving abstinence was 1.71 (95 CI: 1.02-2.84) times higher in nicotine EC users compared with non-nicotine EC users. The proportion of abstinent smokers was 1.69 (95 CI: 1.25-2.27) times higher in EC users compared with participants receiving NRT. EC users showed a 2.04 (95 CI: 0.90-4.64) times higher proportion of abstinent smokers in comparison with participants solely receiving counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that nicotine ECs may be more effective in smoking cessation when compared with placebo ECs or NRT. When compared with counseling alone, nicotine ECs are more effective short term, but its effectiveness appears to diminish with later follow-ups. Given the small number of studies, heterogeneous design, and the overall moderate to low quality of evidence, it is not possible to offer clear recommendations.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study do not allow for a conclusive argument. However, pooling current evidence points toward a potential for ECs as a smoking cessation tool. Though, given the overall quality of evidence, future studies should aim for more clarity in terms of interventions and larger study populations.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic Cigarettes: Past, Present, and Future: What Clinicians Need to Know

Electronic cigarettes (EC) are battery-operated devices that heat and aerosolize a liquid solution that typically contains nicotine. ECs have become commonly used among youth and may pose substantial risks of future addiction and health problems in this population. However, ECs are far less toxic per puff compared with combustible cigarettes, and as a result, might present an important harm reduction opportunity for cigarette smokers who cannot stop smoking by traditional means. The long-term health effects of ECs on individuals and the net effect on public health will remain unknown for many years.

Are electronic cigarettes and vaping effective tools for smoking cessation? Limited evidence on surgical outcomes: a narrative review

The rising popularity of e-cigarettes and vaping, particularly in youth populations, has prompted the scientific community to ocassionally recommend their use as alternative to smoking or as a modality for smoking cessation. Media also tends to portray them as stylish, smoking cessation tools. We first studied the current literature to better understand whether they are viable options for surgeons to use prior to surgery as part of their armamentarium and their efficacy in attaining smoking abstinence. Next, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature to study the impact of e-cigarette and vaping on lung pathophysiology, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications. After a thorough search, we found limited evidence suggesting that e-cigarettes and vaping are effective smoking cessation tools, and indeed may increase the propensity of dual smoking, contrary to e-cigarette advertisements. Many potential biases and limitations exist due to self-reporting when investigating e-cigarettes and vaping. While there is controversial data in the literature about e-cigarettes and vaping not leading to lung cancer, there are chemicals in these products that compromise lung hemostasis, negatively affect the immune system, and have detrimental inflammatory effects on wound healing. Studies are warranted to elucidate objective data regarding short and long-term effects of these products on surgical outcomes, and given the current data, they should not be utilized as viable smoking cessation tools.

Efficacy of Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

to synthesize evidence about the efficacy of electronic cigarettes versus Nicotine Replacement Therapy and placebo to quit smoking.

DATA SOURCES

We searched for clinical trials with no publication date restriction until December 2019. The search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Science Direct, Center for reviews and dissemination and HTA database and Trip database, clinical trials registries, gray literature and examined the references of relevant articles.

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently checked the titles and abstracts then the full text of initial hits. Main outcomes were sustained continuous abstinence rate, 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate, sustained reduction of 50% or greater in baseline cigarette consumption and adverse effects.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We conducted a random-effects model through the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

We retrieved 12 trials involving 9863 participants. CO- validated 1-month continuous abstinence rate improved by 33% in the e-cigarettes group (range 6-66%, moderate evidence). We are uncertain if e-cigarettess influence continuous abstinence rate at 3-, 6- and 12 months as well as sustained reduction of 50% or greater in baseline cigarette consumption at different follow-up periods. One study of 884 participants displayed improved 12-month 7-day point abstinence by 46% (range 17%-82%). E-cigarettes may increase or do not affect the proportion of serious adverse effect at 6 and 12 months follow up.

CONCLUSION

Very low certainty evidence supported e-cigarettess to help quit smoking in the short term. There is not enough evidence to determine if e-cigarettess are a safe and efficacious means of smoking cessation in the long term (12+ months).

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic cigarettes: A position statement from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand

The TSANZ develops position statements where insufficient data exist to write formal clinical guidelines. In 2018, the TSANZ addressed the question of potential benefits and health impacts of electronic cigarettes (EC). The working party included groups focused on health impacts, smoking cessation, youth issues and priority populations. The 2018 report on the Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes from the United States NASEM was accepted as reflective of evidence to mid-2017. A search for papers subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals was conducted in August 2018. A small number of robust and important papers published until March 2019 were also identified and included. Groups identified studies that extended, modified or contradicted the NASEM report. A total of 3793 papers were identified and reviewed, with summaries and draft position statements developed and presented to TSANZ membership in April 2019. After feedback from members and external reviewers, a collection of position statements was finalized in December 2019. EC have adverse lung effects and harmful effects of long-term use are unknown. EC are unsuitable consumer products for recreational use, part-substitution for smoking or long-term exclusive use by former smokers. Smokers who require support to quit smoking should be directed towards approved medication in conjunction with behavioural support as having the strongest evidence for efficacy and safety. No specific EC product can be recommended as effective and safe for smoking cessation. Smoking cessation claims in relation to EC should be assessed by established regulators.

E-cigarette nicotine dose and flavor: Relationship with appeal, choice, and tobacco use amongst veterans with comorbid psychiatric disorders

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (EC) may aid some smokers in reducing combustible tobacco use. Smokers with psychiatric co-morbidities tend to have higher nicotine dependence and worse outcomes, so may particularly benefit from alternative cessation aids. EC characteristics, like nicotine level and flavor, may influence EC's appeal to smokers. Nicotine level may impact EC's efficacy in reducing combustible cigarette use.

METHODS

Non-treatment-seeking cigarette smokers with medical/psychiatric co-morbidities rated 'liking' of ECs varying in nicotine level (12 mg, 24 mg) and flavor (menthol, 'slim'-tobacco, 'burley'-tobacco), during an open-label Choice Procedure. Smokers (N = 43) chose ECs for a 4-week take-home-trial, and used EC and/or combustible cigarettes as they wished. Analyses examined ratings and choice by nicotine level and flavor, and the relationship between consistent take-home choice of 12 mg versus 24 mg baseline demographic/smoking characteristics, and outcomes (cigarettes/day, nicotine intake, motivation to quit smoking) during take-home-trial and one-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Smokers who chose menthol-flavor, tobacco-flavor and/or 24 mg nicotine e-liquids for the first take-home week rated these conditions as more 'liked' than alternative options, at baseline. Groups who chose 12 mg versus 24 mg throughout the take-home trial did not significantly differ on baseline characteristics, or smoking-related outcomes within the take-home trial, however, motivation to quit smoking increased more from baseline to one-month follow-up in choosers of higher nicotine (24 mg) ECs.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations between subjective ratings and subsequent choice support feasibility of open-label choice-procedures in EC trials. Access to 12 mg or 24 mg nicotine ECs was associated with reduced smoking, and 24 mg ECs with increased motivation to quit smoking in smokers with medical/psychiatric co-morbidities.

Electronic cigarette and tobacco use in individuals entering methadone or buprenorphine treatment

BACKGROUND

Although smoking is prevalent among populations with opioid use disorder (OUD), few studies have examined electronic cigarette (EC) use in individuals seeking opioid agonist therapy (OAT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and correlates of EC use among individuals seeking OAT.

METHODS

782 patients seeking OAT for OUD completed surveys assessing current and past EC use, reasons for use, current and past cigarette smoking, nicotine dependence, psychiatric distress, trauma, and pain. Bivariate and multivariate models evaluated correlates of daily EC use, past-30-day EC use, and current cigarette smoking.

RESULTS

6% of patients reported daily EC use, 18% reported past-30-day use, 62% reported EC use history, and 85% reported current cigarette smoking. 46% reported using ECs to quit or cut down smoking. In multivariate analyses, daily EC use was associated with higher odds of being a former smoker (OR 21; CI 1.7-273) and lower odds of ever smoking more than 100 cigarettes (OR 0.07; CI 0.01-0.32), while EC use in the past 30 days was associated with lower odds of being Caucasian (OR 0.55; CI 0.34-0.89), ever smoking more than 100 cigarettes (OR 0.13; CI 0.02-0.67), and history of chronic pain (OR 0.59; CI 0.38-0.90), and higher odds of reporting psychiatric distress (OR 1.5; CI 1.1-2.2).

CONCLUSIONS

EC use is common among people with OUD who smoke cigarettes. Those with daily use had higher odds of being former smokers than current smokers. Interventions using ECs may be effective to help reduce harms and mortality in OUD.