1
|
Kim S, Shiffman S, Goldenson NI. Adult smokers' Complete Switching Away from Cigarettes at 6, 9, and 12 Months after Initially Purchasing a JUUL e-Cigarette. Subst Use Misuse 2024; 59:805-815. [PMID: 38238646 DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2024.2303990] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/01/2024]
Abstract
Background: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) have the potential to benefit public health if smokers completely switch from cigarettes to ENDS. Methods: A cohort of adult smokers (age ≥ 21) who purchased a JUUL Starter Kit was followed for 12 months after the initial purchase. We defined "switching" as past-30-day abstinence from smoking (even if JUUL use had stopped), and analyzed factors associated with achievement and maintenance of self-reported repeated point-prevalence switching (RPPS) at three follow-ups, i.e., no past-30-day smoking at months 6, 9, and 12. Results: RPPS was reported by 21.6% of the 12,537 evaluable smokers. Smokers with lighter smoking history and lower cigarette dependence at baseline were more likely to report RPPS. RPPS was also associated with daily use of JUUL (Month-3: OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 2.02-2.68; Month-6: OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.42-2.10), and with greater subjective reinforcing effects from JUUL use (assessed by the mCEQ, Month-3: OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.38-1.56; Month-6: OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 1.02-1.20). Even among smokers who did not meet the criteria of RPPS (i.e., who smoked at least once), 35.5% reported past 30-day point-prevalence switching on at least one follow-up, and their cigarette consumption was substantially reduced compared to baseline. Conclusions: Approximately one-fifth of adult smokers reported 30-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6, 9, and 12 months after purchasing JUUL. Greater use of JUUL and stronger subjective reinforcing effects were associated with nonsmoking, validating the potential for ENDS to substitute for smoking, with potential for positive impacts on individual and population health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sooyong Kim
- PinneyAssociates, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Saul Shiffman
- PinneyAssociates, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lindson N, Butler AR, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Hajek P, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Livingstone-Banks J, Morris T, Hartmann-Boyce J. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 1:CD010216. [PMID: 38189560 PMCID: PMC10772980 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Tom Morris
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hwang JS, Lee K, Kim CY, Kim H, Kim S, Lee CM. JUUL preference among Korean adult tobacco users and its effect on attempts to quit tobacco: A follow-up survey four months post JUUL launch. Tob Induc Dis 2023; 21:39. [PMID: 36925566 PMCID: PMC10012008 DOI: 10.18332/tid/160163] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2022] [Revised: 12/23/2022] [Accepted: 01/31/2023] [Indexed: 03/16/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This study examined the various factors in the selection of JUUL (and/or), a pod-mod type electronic cigarette (EC), and the changes in EC patterns before and after the JUUL debut on 24 May 2019, using follow-up survey data of adult tobacco users in South Korea. METHODS This study examined transition outcomes among tobacco users and factors associated with future JUUL use. Convenience sample data were collected from adult tobacco users in South Korea, from March-April 2019 (baseline, n=2173) to September 2019 (follow-up, n=779). Results were obtained from the 779 respondents in the follow-up survey, and user data of one or more tobacco products were analyzed. The changes in the proportion of EC and JUUL use during this period were calculated, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate the selection factors of JUUL. RESULTS Four months after the JUUL launch, the proportion of current EC and JUUL users among the whole sample increased by 10.3% (42.6-52.9%, p<0.001) and 17.7 % (4.0-21.7%, p<0.001), respectively, while the proportion of triple users doubled (18.7% vs 37.5%, p<0.001). Among current EC users, the percentage of quitting EC within one month decreased from 18.7% to 8.7%; this change was more pronounced among concurrent JUUL users than non-JUUL users (p<0.001). In the multivariate logistic analysis with adjustment for possible confounders, JUUL use was significantly associated with male sex, young and middle age, and metropolitan residency status at the baseline survey. CONCLUSIONS After the launch of JUUL in South Korea, EC users, including JUUL and triple users, increased significantly, but the intention to stop EC decreased significantly. Given the serious interests of the tobacco industry in these products, additional regulation is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ju Sam Hwang
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Kiheon Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.,Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Choon-Young Kim
- Department of Family Medicine, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Heejin Kim
- Department of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, Institute for Health Promotion, Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Sungroul Kim
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Soonchunhyang University, Asan, Republic of Korea
| | - Cheol M Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.,Department of Family Medicine, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Boozary LK, Frank-Pearce SG, Alexander AC, Sifat MS, Kurien J, Waring JJ, Ehlke SJ, Businelle MS, Ahluwalia JS, Kendzor DE. Tobacco use characteristics, treatment preferences, and motivation to quit among adults accessing a day shelter in Oklahoma City. DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE REPORTS 2022; 5:100117. [PMID: 36844157 PMCID: PMC9949321 DOI: 10.1016/j.dadr.2022.100117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2022] [Revised: 10/07/2022] [Accepted: 11/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Background Smoking rates are exceptionally high among adults experiencing homelessness (AEH). Research is needed to inform treatment approaches in this population. Methods Participants (n=404) were adults who accessed an urban day shelter and reported current smoking. Participants completed surveys regarding their sociodemographic characteristics, tobacco and substance use, mental health, motivation to quit smoking (MTQS), and smoking cessation treatment preferences. Participant characteristics were described and compared by MTQS. Results Participants who reported current smoking (N=404) were primarily male (74.8%); White (41.4%), Black (27.8%), or American Indian/Alaska Native (14.1%) race; and 10.7% Hispanic. Participants reported a mean age of 45.6 (SD=11.2) years, and they smoked an average of 12.6 (SD=9.4) cigarettes per day. Most participants reported moderate or high MTQS (57%) and were interested in receiving free cessation treatment (51%). Participants most frequently selected the following options as among the top 3 treatments that offered the best chance of quitting: Nicotine replacement therapy (25%), money/gift cards for quitting (17%), prescription medications (17%), and switching to e-cigarettes (16%). Craving (55%), stress/mood (40%), habit (39%), and being around other smokers (36%) were frequently identified as the most challenging aspects of quitting. Low MTQS was associated with White race, lack of religious participation, lack of health insurance, lower income, greater cigarettes smoked per day, and higher expired carbon monoxide. Higher MTQS was associated with sleeping unsheltered, cell phone ownership, higher health literacy, more years of smoking, and interest in free treatment. Discussion Multi-level, multi-component interventions are needed to address tobacco disparities among AEH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laili Kharazi Boozary
- Department of Psychology, Cellular and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK 73019
- TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
| | - Summer G. Frank-Pearce
- TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Hudson College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
| | - Adam C. Alexander
- TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
| | - Munjireen S. Sifat
- TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
| | - Jasmin Kurien
- TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
| | - Joseph J.C. Waring
- Bloomberg School of Public of Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Sarah J. Ehlke
- TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
| | - Michael S. Businelle
- TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
| | - Jasjit S. Ahluwalia
- School of Public Health, Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States
| | - Darla E. Kendzor
- TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kotlyar M, Shanley R, Dufresne SR, Corcoran GA, Hatsukami DK. Effect of restricting menthol flavored cigarettes or E-cigarettes on smoking behavior in menthol smokers. Prev Med 2022; 165:107243. [PMID: 36087624 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2022] [Revised: 08/08/2022] [Accepted: 09/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Bans of menthol characterizing flavor in tobacco products have been enacted in some localities and proposed in the United States for cigarettes. To gather data regarding how restrictions for menthol in cigarettes and e-cigarettes may affect current menthol cigarette smokers, 37 African American menthol smokers participated in a pilot study in which they were asked to abstain (n = 18) or not abstain from menthol cigarettes (n = 19) for 8-weeks. All participants received menthol flavored e-cigarettes for 4 weeks and tobacco flavored e-cigarettes for 4 weeks in random order. Number of cigarettes smoked per day (estimated mean ratio [EMR] = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.72) and exhaled CO concentrations (EMR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.88) were lower in the menthol cigarette abstainer group compared to the menthol cigarette non-abstainer group. Those in the menthol cigarette abstainer group reported higher scores on motivation to quit (p = 0.03) and perceived effectiveness of quitting skills (p = 0.02). There were no substantial effects seen in amount smoked or exhaled CO based on flavor of e-cigarettes provided. Higher e-cigarette use (based on reported puffs per day) was reported in the menthol cigarette abstainer (vs. non-abstainer) group (p < 0.01) and also during the 4-week period when provided with menthol (vs. tobacco) e-cigarettes (p < 0.01). These data suggest that the potential of e-cigarettes to reduce tobacco related harm may be enhanced if combined with a ban on menthol flavor in combustible cigarettes. Larger studies are needed to determine the effect of limiting menthol in e-cigarettes on smoking behavior among current menthol smokers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Kotlyar
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA; Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
| | - Ryan Shanley
- Biostatistics Core, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
| | - Sheena R Dufresne
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
| | - Gretchen A Corcoran
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
| | - Dorothy K Hatsukami
- Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Lindson N, Butler AR, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Fanshawe TR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 11:CD010216. [PMID: 36384212 PMCID: PMC9668543 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Butler AR, Lindson N, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Fanshawe TR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 9:CD010216. [PMID: 34519354 PMCID: PMC8438601 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|