Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery system with 0, 8, or 36 mg/mL liquid nicotine versus a cigarette substitute on tobacco-related toxicant exposure: a four-arm, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial

Evaluating the human abuse potential of concurrent use of electronic cigarettes and low nicotine cigarettes among adults who smoke

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated its intention to reduce the nicotine content of combustible cigarettes to render them less addictive. This study evaluated the impact of providing adults who smoke with both very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNCCs) and electronic cigarettes (ECs) of varying nicotine content on measures of human abuse potential. Participants (n = 213) were adult combustible cigarette users. They smoked their usual brand cigarettes (UBCs) during Phase 1 (baseline; week 1) and were provided with and encouraged to exclusively use VLNCCs during Phase 2 (weeks 2-4). During dual-product Phases 3 (weeks 5-7) and 4 (weeks 8-10), participants received both VLNCCs and ECs (assigned to one of two EC devices in higher or lower nicotine concentrations and choice of flavor), with instructions to use them freely in Phases 3 and 4. Assessments included product use, exposure, acceptability, risk perception, and withdrawal-related measures. Results indicated that participants used significantly fewer UBCs during the VLNCC and dual-product phases and smoked fewer VLNCCs during the dual-product phases than the VLNCC-only phase. Neither EC liquid nicotine concentration nor flavor influenced product use. The three study product phases resulted in less product liking and more withdrawal symptoms than the UBC phase. These results suggest that adults who smoke are able to switch much of their tobacco product use from UBCs to VLNCCs and will substitute combustible UBCs and VLNCCs with noncombustible nicotine-containing ECs, but most remain dual users, at least in the short term. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Effect of E-Cigarette Substitution for Cigarettes on Weight Status: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The substitution of smoking with electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) is increasingly used as a strategy for tobacco cessation or reduction, and its impact on body weight is a key area of research.

AIMS

To examine the effects of ENDS on weight status in adults who smoke cigarettes.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in Scopus, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library from 2010 to February 2024. Studies were included if they were randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies reporting longitudinal body weight measurements of adults who smoked cigarettes and either partially or entirely substituted ENDS for smoking. Quality assessment was performed using the JBI quality assessment tools, and bias was reported using the Oxford Catalogue of Bias. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

The systematic review included nine articles from eight trials. Study designs were five RCTs, two cohort studies, and one quasi-experimental study. Two studies had a high risk of bias, five had some concerns, and one was at low risk. Weight change varied, with a consistent pattern of weight gain over time for exclusive ENDS users and modest weight gain for dual users. The overall body of evidence was considered weak because the total number of participants was less than 1000.

CONCLUSIONS

ENDS use may have a modest impact on weight status among individuals trying to quit smoking. However, the evidence base is limited, and further research is needed to understand the long-term effects of ENDS use on weight.

Nicotine strength of e-liquids used by adult vapers in Great Britain: A population survey 2016 to 2024

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In March 2024, the UK government announced plans to introduce a Vaping Products Duty that will tax e-liquids based on their nicotine strength. This study examined trends in the nicotine strength of e-liquids used by adult vapers and differences in those currently used across relevant subgroups.

DESIGN

Nationally-representative, cross-sectional household survey, July 2016 to January 2024.

SETTING

Great Britain.

PARTICIPANTS

7981 adult vapers.

MEASUREMENTS

Participants were asked whether the e-cigarette they mainly use contains nicotine (yes/no) and the e-liquid strength (no nicotine, >0-≤ 6, 7-11, 12-19 or ≥20 mg/ml). We also collected information on the main device type used (disposable/refillable/pod), age, gender, occupational social grade, history of ≥1 mental health conditions, smoking status and (among past-year smokers) level of cigarette addiction.

FINDINGS

The proportion of vapers in England using high-strength (≥20 mg/ml) e-liquids increased from an average of 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.9-5.0) up to June 2021 to 32.5% (CI = 27.9-37.4) in January 2024 (the vast majority of whom [93.3% in January 2024] reported using exactly 20 mg/ml; the legal limit). This rise was most pronounced among those using disposable e-cigarettes, those aged 18-24 years and all smoking statuses (including never smokers) except long-term (≥1y) ex-smokers. Of those surveyed in 2022-2024 in Great Britain, overall, 89.5% (CI = 88.1-90.8) said they usually used e-cigarettes containing nicotine, 8.7% (CI = 7.5-10.0) used nicotine-free e-cigarettes, and 1.8% (CI = 1.2-2.4) were unsure. The proportion using ≥20 mg/ml was higher among those mainly using disposable (47.9%) compared with pod (16.3%) or refillable (11.5%) devices; never smokers (36.0%), current smokers (28.8%) or recent (<1y) ex-smokers (27.4%), compared with long-term ex-smokers (13.9%); and younger (16-24y; 44.2%) compared with older (≥25y; range 9.4-25.1%) age groups. There were no notable differences across other subgroups of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of high-strength nicotine e-liquids in England appears to have increased sharply in recent years. Most adult vapers in Great Britain appear to use e-cigarettes that contain nicotine but different subgroups use different strengths: nicotine strengths tend to be higher among those who mainly use disposable devices and those aged 16-24y, and lower among long-term ex-smokers.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices that 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 EC 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 Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2024 and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, reference-checked, and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials randomizing people who smoke to an EC or control condition. We included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. We used the risk of bias tool (RoB 1) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Important outcomes were biomarkers, toxicants/carcinogens, and longer-term EC use. 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 90 completed studies (two new to this update), representing 29,044 participants, of which 49 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated 10 (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 61 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. Nicotine EC results in increased quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (high-certainty evidence) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.30 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). The rate of occurrence of AEs is probably similar between groups (moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision)) (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). Nicotine EC probably results in increased quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision) (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 probably little to no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (moderate-certainty evidence) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 840 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). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (low-certainty evidence due to issues with risk of bias) (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 6819 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 3 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; I2 = 6%; low-certainty evidence; 6 studies, 2351 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 4561 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes. There was inconsistency in the AE network, which was explained by a single outlying study contributing the only direct evidence for one of the nodes. 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 or 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 evidence for a difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT, but low-certainty evidence for increased AEs compared with behavioural support/no support. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longer, larger studies are needed to fully evaluate EC safety. Our included studies tested regulated nicotine-containing EC; illicit products and/or products containing other active substances (e.g. tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)) may have different harm profiles. 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 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.

Predictors of attrition in a randomized controlled trial of an electronic nicotine delivery system among people interested in cigarette smoking reduction

BACKGROUND

Mitigating attrition is a key component to reduce selection bias in longitudinal randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Few studies of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) allow for the examination of long-term retention. This analysis explores the relationship between attrition, baseline measures, and condition assigned for a RCT involving ENDS differing in nicotine delivery over a 24-week intervention period.

METHODS

Participants (N = 520) who smoked ≥10 cigarettes per day [CPD] for ≥1 year and reported interest in reducing but not quitting were randomized to 1 of 4 conditions: an ENDS containing 0, 8, or 36 mg/ml liquid nicotine (administered double-blind) or a cigarette-shaped plastic tube. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fit to examine attrition over time and predictors of attrition including baseline characteristics and condition. A stepwise approach was used to determine the final model; alpha was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Attrition did not differ significantly by condition (223/520), and most (69%) were lost-to-follow-up. Only age, education level, and household income were significantly predictive of attrition. For every additional year of age, attrition risk fell by 3%. Holding a bachelor's degree or higher was associated with reduced attrition risk. Those with the lowest income (<$10 K) were more likely to be withdrawn compared to those earning $10 K-39 K, and those with the highest income ($100 K+) were more likely to be withdrawn compared with the latter bracket and those earning $70-99 K.

CONCLUSION

ENDS nicotine content did not drive differential attrition in this trial, and targeted retention efforts are needed for specific subgroups. Trial Registration #: NCT02342795.

The potential of new nicotine and tobacco products as tools for people who smoke to quit combustible cigarettes - a systematic review of common practices and guidance towards a robust study protocol to measure cessation efficacy

New types of nicotine and tobacco products like electronic cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products or nicotine pouches have been discussed as less harmful alternatives to combustible cigarettes and other toxic forms of tobacco products. Their harm reduction potential lay in the efficient transition away from smoking to those new products. Numerous studies addressing the cessation efficacy of ECs have been published with contradictory outcomes. Yet, a comprehensive Cochrane review concluded with high certainty on the cessation efficacy of ECs. This prompted us to perform a review to identify weaknesses in common study designs and to summarize best practices for the study design on the potential of new nicotine products as cessation aids. 120 articles retrieved from Medline were found to be eligible. Most of the studies in the field were interventional trials while observational studies played a minor role in the evaluation of smoking cessation. Efficacy was predominantly assessed for ECs in 77% of the reports while heated tobacco (17%) and non-combustible products (11%) were less frequently investigated up to now. Measures to determine the efficacy were questionnaire-based assessments as well as use documentation/prevalence and abstinence rates. Studies varied largely in their duration and sample size with medians of 3 months and 156.5 participants, respectively.With the help of this review, we identified several weaknesses in the common study designs. One major limitation in longitudinal trials was the lack of compliance measures suited to verify the use status over longer time periods, relying solely on self-reports. Moreover, the motivation of the participants to quit was rarely defined and a profound familiarization period was not taken into account for the majority of the studies. To what extent such weaknesses influence the outcome of the studies was beyond the scope of this review. We encourage researchers to consider the recommendations which resulted from this review in order to determine the abuse liability and cessation efficacy of the products in a more robust manner. Finally, we like to call attention to the missing data for low- and middle-income countries which would require quitting strategies most urgently to combat the tobacco smoking epidemic.

Understanding the nicotine dose delivered by electronic nicotine delivery systems in a single puff: the importance of nicotine flux and puff duration

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) may lead to public health benefit if they help people who smoke quit smoking, and may lead to public health harm if they recruit a new generation of nicotine-dependent people. Regulators intent on maximising ENDS' public health benefit and minimising harm may be interested in regulating the nicotine dose delivered by ENDS in a single puff. The per-puff nicotine dose is the product of ENDS nicotine emission rate (or 'nicotine flux') and the duration of the puff taken by the person using the ENDS (or 'puff duration'). Nicotine flux can be measured or predicted mathematically for any ENDS device/liquid combination. Puff duration can be controlled electronically, as demonstrated by several ENDS marketed today. Combining nicotine flux and puff duration regulation is feasible today and provides authorities the means to limit nicotine dose per puff to a level that may help people who smoke quit smoking while reducing the possibility that nicotine-naive individuals will engage in repeated ENDS use. Tobacco regulatory science and product regulation will both be improved by a rigorous approach to understanding, characterising, and reporting the nicotine dose emitted by ENDS.

Effects of liquid nicotine concentration and flavour on the acceptability of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) among people who smoke participating in a randomised controlled trial to reduce cigarette consumption

BACKGROUND

Research is needed to understand the acceptability of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) as a smoking reduction aid. This study examines the acceptability of ENDS by liquid nicotine concentration and flavour among people who smoke using ENDS to reduce their smoking.

METHODS

People who smoke cigarettes but were naïve to ENDS participated in a double-blind randomised controlled trial to reduce conventional cigarette smoking. Participants were randomised to either a control cigarette substitute (CS) or one of three ENDS groups; 0 mg/mL, 8 mg/mL or 36 mg/mL nicotine concentration. ENDS flavour was chosen by the participant (tobacco or menthol). Participants reported their CS, ENDS and cigarettes per day (CPD) from the past 7 days at 1-month, 3-month and 6-month follow-up visits. Participants also reported side effects and measures of satisfaction, psychological reward, aversion and craving relief. Outcome variables were modelled using linear mixed effects by the following groups: liquid nicotine concentration, flavour and a flavour-nicotine concentration interaction.

RESULTS

Participants (n=520) were 41.2% male, 67.3% white, had a mean age of 46.2 years and smoked a mean of 18.6 CPD (SD=7.74) at baseline. All flavour and concentration groups decreased CPD from baseline to all follow-up visits with the 36 mg/mL experiencing the greatest reduction, compared with the 0 mg/mL and 8 mg/mL groups. All groups except the 36 mg/mL group decreased their product use over time. The use of menthol flavour was associated with fewer side effects at 3 months (p=0.02) and lesser aversion at 1 month (p=0.03) compared with tobacco-flavoured ENDS. The 36 mg/mL group experienced the greatest craving relief and greatest aversion compared with other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both nicotine concentration and flavour appear to have independent, as well as interactive, effects that influence ENDS acceptability among people who use cigarettes.

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.

Consideration of vaping products as an alternative to adult smoking: a narrative review

Tobacco harm reduction is a public health approach to reduce the impact of cigarette smoking on individuals. Non-combustible alternatives to cigarettes, such as electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), deliver nicotine to the user in the absence of combustion. The absence of combustion in e-cigarettes reduces the level of harmful or potentially harmful chemicals in the aerosol generated. This narrative review examines the published literature that studied the chemistry of e-cigarette aerosols, the related toxicology in cell culture and animal models, as well as clinical studies that investigated short- and long-term changes in biomarkers of smoke exposure after switching to e-cigarettes. In the context of the literature reviewed, the evidence supports the harm reduction potential for adult smokers who switch to e-cigarettes.

Use of e-Cigarettes in Cigarette Smoking Cessation: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Many adults use e-cigarettes to help them quit cigarette smoking. However, the impact of self-selected use of e-cigarettes on cigarette smoking cessation, particularly when concurrently receiving app-based behavioral interventions, remains unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

This study used data from a randomized trial of 2 smartphone apps to compare 12-month cigarette smoking cessation rates between participants who used e-cigarettes on their own (ie, adopters: n=465) versus those who did not (ie, nonadopters: n=1097).

METHODS

The study population included all participants who did not use e-cigarettes at baseline. "Adopters" were those who self-reported the use of e-cigarettes at either 3- or 6-month follow-ups. "Nonadopters" were those who self-reported no use of e-cigarettes at either follow-up time point. The primary cessation outcome was self-reported, complete-case, 30-day point prevalence abstinence from cigarette smoking at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were missing-as-smoking and multiple imputation analyses of the primary outcome, prolonged abstinence, and cessation of all nicotine and tobacco products at 12 months. In logistic regression models, we first examined the potential interaction between e-cigarette use and treatment arm (iCanQuit vs QuitGuide) on the primary cessation outcome. Subsequently, we compared 12-month cigarette smoking cessation rates between adopters and nonadopters separately for each app.

RESULTS

There was suggestive evidence for an interaction between e-cigarette use and treatment arm on cessation (P=.05). In the iCanQuit arm, 12-month cigarette smoking cessation rates were significantly lower among e-cigarette adopters compared with nonadopters (41/193, 21.2% vs 184/527, 34.9%; P=.003; odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.81). In contrast, in the QuitGuide arm, 12-month cigarette smoking cessation rates did not differ between adopters and nonadopters (46/246, 18.7% vs 104/522, 19.9%; P=.64; odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.62-1.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of e-cigarettes while concurrently receiving an app-based smoking cessation intervention was associated with either a lower or an unimproved likelihood of quitting cigarette smoking compared to no use. Future behavioral treatments for cigarette smoking cessation should consider including information on the potential consequences of e-cigarette use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02724462; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02724462.

Part two: an unblinded, parallel, randomized study to assess nicotine pharmacokinetics of four Vuse Solo ENDS flavors in smokers

We report the findings from a randomized, parallel study designed to evaluate nicotine pharmacokinetics (PK) following 10 min of ad libitum use of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) in four flavor variants. Subjects were randomized an investigational product (IP) and blood samples were collected for PK assessments during a test session. Primary endpoints were baseline-adjusted values of maximum plasma nicotine concentration (C_max) and area under the nicotine concentration-vs-time curve up to 60 min (AUC_nic0-60). Baseline-adjusted mean C_max ranged from 6.53 to 8.21 ng/mL, and mean AUC_nic0-60 ranged from 206.87 to 263.52 ng min/mL for all ENDS IPs. Results of geometric mean C_max and AUC_nic0-60 values were within 95% confidence intervals (CI) among the ENDS IP flavor variants tested.

Comparison of biomarkers of exposure among US adult smokers, users of electronic nicotine delivery systems, dual users and nonusers, 2018-2019

The harm caused by cigarette smoking is overwhelmingly due to byproducts of tobacco combustion. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) provide nicotine to users without combustion, and may support tobacco harm reduction among cigarette smokers who would not otherwise quit in the near term. Analyses of Wave 5 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study compared biomarkers of exposure (BOE) levels for nicotine, 3 metals, 2 tobacco-specific nitrosamines and 14 smoking-related volatile organic compounds in 151 exclusive ENDS users, 1341 exclusive cigarette smokers, 115 dual users (cigarettes and ENDS), and 1846 past 30-day nonusers of tobacco, adjusting for demographics. Nicotine exposure in ENDS users and dual users did not significantly differ from smokers. Among ENDS users, 16 of 18 other BOEs were significantly lower than smokers'; 9 BOEs were not significantly different from nonusers. Among dual users smoking < 10 cigarettes/day, 15 of 18 non-nicotine BOEs were significantly lower than smokers', whereas in dual users smoking ≥ 10 cigarettes per day none of the BOEs significantly differed from smokers'. In this representative sample of US adults, exclusive use of ENDS (vs. cigarette smoking) was associated with much lower exposures to many harmful chemicals associated with smoking-related disease. BOE levels in dual users were directly related to their cigarette consumption. These BOE data provide further evidence that ENDS expose users to substantially lower levels of toxicants than combustible cigarettes, confirming their potential for harm reduction.

An exploration of flavours in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation: secondary analyses of a systematic review with meta-analyses

AIMS

To estimate associations between e-cigarette flavour and smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a living systematic review, with meta-analyses and narrative synthesis, incorporating data up to January 2022. Included studies provided people who smoked combustible cigarettes with nicotine e-cigarettes for the purpose of smoking cessation compared with no treatment or other stop smoking interventions. Measurements included smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); and flavour use at any time-points.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies (n = 10 336); 14 contributed to subgroup analyses and 10 provided participants with a choice of e-cigarette flavour. We judged nine, five and two studies at high, low and unclear risk of bias, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed no clear associations between flavour and cessation or product use. In all but one analysis, tests for subgroup differences resulted in I2 values between 0 and 35%. In the comparison between nicotine e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (I2  = 65.2% for subgroup differences), studies offering tobacco flavour e-cigarettes showed evidence of a greater proportion of participants still using at 6 months or longer (RR = 3.81; 95% CI = 1.45-10.05; n = 1181; I2  = 84%), whereas there was little evidence for greater 6-month use when studies offered a choice of flavours (RR = 1.44; 95% CI = 0.80-2.56; n = 454; I2  = 82%). However, substantial statistical heterogeneity within subgroups makes interpretation of this result unclear. In the 10 studies where participants had a choice of flavours, and this was tracked over time, some switching between flavours occurred, but there were no clear patterns in flavour preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not appear to be a clear association between e-cigarette flavours and smoking cessation or longer-term e-cigarette use, possibly due to a paucity of data. There is evidence that people using e-cigarettes to quit smoking switch between e-cigarette flavours.

Biomarkers of potential harm in people switching from smoking tobacco to exclusive e-cigarette use, dual use or abstinence: secondary analysis of Cochrane systematic review of trials of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation

AIMS

This study aims to compare biomarkers of potential harm between people switching from smoking combustible cigarettes (CC) completely to electronic cigarettes (EC), continuing to smoke CC, using both EC and CC (dual users) and using neither (abstainers), based on behaviour during EC intervention studies.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis following systematic review, incorporating inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and effect direction plots.

SETTING

This study was conducted in Greece, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1299 adults smoking CC (nine studies) and provided EC.

MEASUREMENTS

Measurements were conducted using carbon monoxide (CO) and 26 other biomarkers.

FINDINGS

In pooled analyses, exhaled CO (eCO) was lower in EC versus EC + CC [mean difference (MD) = -4.40 parts per million (p.p.m.), 95% confidence interval (CI) = -12.04 to 3.24, two studies] and CC (MD = -9.57 p.p.m., 95% CI = -17.30 to -1.83, three studies). eCO was lower in dual users versus CC only (MD = -1.91 p.p.m., 95% CI = -3.38 to -0.45, two studies). Magnitude rather than direction of effect drove substantial statistical heterogeneity. Effect direction plots were used for other biomarkers. Comparing EC with CC, 12 of 13 biomarkers were significantly lower in EC users, with no difference for the 13th. Comparing EC with dual users, 12 of the 25 biomarkers were lower for EC, and five were lower for dual use. For the remaining eight measures, single studies did not detect statistically significant differences, or the multiple studies contributing to the outcome had inconsistent results. Only one study provided data comparing dual use with CC; of the 13 biomarkers measured, 12 were significantly lower in the dual use group, with no statistically significant difference detected for the 13th. Only one study provided data on abstainers.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from smoking to vaping or dual use appears to reduce levels of biomarkers of potential harm significantly.

Changes in Nicotine Dependence Among Smokers Using Electronic Cigarettes to Reduce Cigarette Smoking in a Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

How nicotine dependence will be affected when current smokers initiate electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use to reduce cigarette smoking is unknown. This study evaluated cigarette, e-cigarette, and total nicotine dependence more than 6 months among smokers reducing cigarette consumption by replacing with e-cigarettes.

AIMS AND METHODS

Adult cigarette smokers were randomized to one of four conditions (36 mg/ml e-cigarette, 8 mg/ml e-cigarette, 0 mg/ml e-cigarette, or cigarette-substitute [CS] [provided at no cost]) and instructed to reduce their cigarette smoking by 75% at 1 month. Participants completed follow-up at 1, 3, and 6 months. The Penn State Nicotine Dependence Index (PSNDI) measured dependence on cigarettes (PSCDI) and e-cigarettes (PSECDI). Urine cotinine measured total nicotine exposure. Linear mixed effects models for each outcome were conducted and included interaction terms between visit and condition.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 520) were 58.8% female, 67.3% White, and 48.0 years old. At baseline, the median number of cigarettes smoked per day was 17.3 and the mean PSCDI score was 13.4, with no significant differences between conditions. Participants in the e-cigarette conditions reported significantly lower PSCDI scores, compared with baseline, and with the CS condition at all follow-up visits. Those in the 36 mg/ml e-cigarette condition reported greater PSECDI scores at 6 months, compared with baseline and the 0 mg/ml and 8 mg/ml conditions. At all follow-up visits, there were no differences in total nicotine exposure compared to baseline, nor between any conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarette use was associated with reduced cigarette dependence, compared to the CS, without significant increases in total nicotine exposure.

IMPLICATIONS

Initiation of electronic cigarette use while continuing to smoke could potentially increase nicotine dependence. In this randomized trial aimed at helping smokers to reduce their cigarette intake, we found that use of an e-cigarette was associated with a reduction in cigarette dependence and an increase in e-cigarette dependence (in the condition with the highest nicotine concentration only), with no long term increase in total nicotine dependence or nicotine exposure.

Biomarkers of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) Use

This perspective summarizes available evidence on biomarkers of exposure in electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) users to aid the overall assessment of the health consequences of using ENDS. Identification of novel biomarkers of exposure specific to ENDS use remains challenging because chemicals emitted from ENDS devices have many familiar sources. The biomarker levels of many tobacco-related toxicants measured in biological samples collected from ENDS users did not differ significantly from non-users, except for nicotine metabolites and a small number of biomarkers of exposure to volatile organic compounds and tobacco-specific tobacco nitrosamines. Several studies have shown that while exposed to nicotine, long-term exclusive ENDS users showed significantly lower levels of toxicant biomarkers than cigarette smokers. Studies have also shown that concurrent users of ENDS and combustible cigarettes ('dual users') are not reducing overall exposure to harmful toxicants compared to exclusive cigarette smokers. Because of an absence of validated ENDS-specific biomarkers, we recommend combining several biomarkers to differentiate tobacco product user groups in population-based studies and monitor ENDS compliance in randomized controlled trials. Using a panel of biomarkers would provide a better understanding of health effects related to ENDS use.

Smoking, e-cigarettes and the effect on respiratory symptoms among a population sample of youth: Retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

E-cigarettes have been steadily increasing in popularity, both as cessation methods for smoking and for recreational and social reasons. This increase in vaping may pose cardiovascular and respiratory risks. We aimed to assess respiratory symptoms in youth users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes.

METHODS

A retrospective survey design was utilized to assess Canadian youth aged 16-25 years. Participants were recruited from the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit Youth and Young Adult Research Registration Panel November 2020 to March 2021. A total of 3082 subjects completed the baseline survey. Of these, 2660 individuals who did not have asthma were included in the analysis. The exposure of interest was pack-equivalent years, a novel measure of vaping exposure equivalent conceptually to cigarette pack years incorporating number of puffs per day, number of days vaped per month, and number of years vaped. Respiratory symptoms were measured using the five-item Canadian Lung Health Test. Poisson regression analyses were performed while adjusting for demographic confounders, stratified by smoking status. A non-stratified model tested the interaction of status and vaping dose and the effect of vaping device used was assessed among ever vapers. Analyses controlled for demographic characteristics, use of cannabis and alcohol, and survey date.

RESULTS

Each additional puff year increased the rate ratio (RR) of respiratory symptoms by a factor of 11.36 (95% CI: 4.61-28.00; p<0.001) for never smokers, but among current daily smokers higher pack-equivalent years were not associated with more respiratory symptoms (RR=0.83; 95% CI: 0.23-3.11). Among current vapers, those using pod-style devices were more likely to have more respiratory symptoms (RR=1.25; 95% CI: 1.08-1.45) after adjusting for dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaping is associated with an increased risk of reporting respiratory symptoms among never smoking youth and non-daily ever cigarette smokers. Use of e-cigarettes among non-smokers should be discouraged.

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 randomised, crossover, clinical study to assess nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of the BIDI® stick ENDS compared with combustible cigarettes and a comparator ENDS in adult smokers

BACKGROUND

Nicotine pharmacokinetic assessments of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are crucial to understand their ability to provide an alternative to cigarette smoking. Subjective effects data also strongly contribute to this understanding. The BIDI® Stick is a disposable ENDS product which contains 59 mg/ml nicotine benzoate salt and various flavours.

METHODS

In this study, we assessed nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of 6 flavour variants of BIDI® Stick ENDS in adult smokers, compared to cigarettes and a comparator ENDS product. During each of eight study visits, 18 volunteer smoker subjects randomly used one of either their usual brand (UB) of cigarette, a BIDI® Stick ENDS, or a comparator ENDS (JUUL 59 mg/ml nicotine with Virginia Tobacco flavour), during both controlled (10 puffs, 30 s apart) and ad libitum (60 min) puffing sessions. Blood samples were collected at various time points and subjective effects questionnaires were administered.

RESULTS

Mean [SD] plasma nicotine Cmax 0-120 was not significantly different between BIDI® Stick ENDS with any flavour (range 15.3 [9.90] ng/ml for BIDI® Stick Winter to 17.6 [9.00] ng/ml for BIDI® Stick Classic) and UB cigarettes (16.2 [9.17] ng/ml). Mean [SD] AUC0-120 (range 569.7 [327.29] to 628.6 [408.99]  min*ng/ml for BIDI® Stick ENDS and 747.1 [325.48]  min*ng/ml for UB cigarettes) and median Tmax 0-120 (range 5-7 min for all BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes) values were also not significantly different between BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes, while subjective effects measures were also similar between BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes. Mean [SD] plasma nicotine Cmax 0-120, AUC0-120, and median Tmax 0-120 were 6.8 [4.13] ng/ml, 243.6 [179.04] min*ng/ml, and 5 min, respectively, for JUUL ENDS. These values were significantly different compared with those for all BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes for both Cmax 0-120 and AUC0-120 but not for Tmax 0-120.

CONCLUSIONS

BIDI® Stick ENDS delivered nicotine to users comparably to their UB combustible cigarette and higher than JUUL ENDS, and also elicited similar subjective effects such as satisfaction and relief. Thus, the BIDI® Stick ENDS may be a satisfying alternative to cigarettes among current smokers and may support their transitioning away from cigarette smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier number NCT05072925).

Emission and Gas/Particle Partitioning Characteristics of Nicotine in Aerosols for Electronic Cigarettes

Nicotine is a dependence-producing component in electronic cigarettes. The nicotine release characteristics of electronic cigarettes are closely connected with human exposure and respiratory health. In this paper, a theoretical model was established to study the effects of the compositions of e-liquids and the heating powers of device on the emission and gas/particle partitioning characteristics of nicotine in aerosols at equilibrium. The simulation results of nicotine emissions were compared with the experimental data. The errors between them were within a reasonable range. At a larger heating power level, a higher nicotine yield and a larger vaporization amount of e-liquids could be observed. Under the same heating power condition, a higher vegetable glycerin content in e-liquids could result in a lower nicotine emission. When the heating powers supplied by the device increased, a larger mass fraction of particle-phase nicotine in aerosols at equilibrium would appear. As more propylene glycol was added into e-liquids, a lower mass fraction of gas-phase nicotine would exist in aerosols at equilibrium. The results may provide more information for the industry to set technical standards for electronic cigarettes and for the government department to make regulatory policies.

A Randomized Trial of Nicotine versus No-nicotine E-cigarettes Among African American Smokers: Changes in Smoking and Tobacco Biomarkers

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this clinical trial was to compare the effects of e-cigarettes with and without nicotine on patterns of combustible cigarette use and biomarkers of exposure to tobacco toxicants among African American smokers.

METHODS

African American smokers (n = 234) were enrolled in a 12-week, single blind, randomized controlled trial and assigned to ad lib use of nicotine e-cigarettes with or without menthol (2.4% nicotine [equivalent to combustible cigarettes], n = 118), or no-nicotine e-cigarettes (n = 116) for 6 weeks. Surveys were administered at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 weeks, and urinary biomarkers 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) and total nicotine equivalents (TNE) were assessed at baseline and 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Participants smoked an average of 11.4 cigarettes per day (CPD) and 88% used menthol cigarettes at baseline. At Week 6, the nicotine group reported using e-cigarettes 9.1 times per day compared to 11.4 times in the no-nicotine group (p = 0.42). Combustible cigarette smoking decreased 3.0 CPD in the nicotine group compared to 2.7 CPD in the no-nicotine group (p = 0.74). Neither TNE nor NNAL changed significantly between baseline and Week 6. There were no differences in nicotine withdrawal symptoms between treatment groups. Smoking reduction persisted in both groups at Week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypotheses, nicotine e-cigarettes did not significantly reduce the use of combustible cigarettes compared to no-nicotine e-cigarettes in this cohort of African American smokers. Findings suggest e-cigarettes are modestly associated with the decreased use of combustible cigarettes among non-treatment seeking smokers, regardless of nicotine content, but without a reduction in tobacco toxicants.

IMPLICATIONS

Although e-cigarettes have the potential to reduce harm if substituted for combusted cigarettes (or if they promoted cessation) because of lower levels of tobacco toxicants, this study suggests ad lib use of e-cigarettes among African American smokers, with or without nicotine, results in modest smoking reduction but does not change toxicant exposure in a cohort where smoking cessation or reduction is not the goal. These data suggest that testing future harm reduction interventions using e-cigarettes should include more specific behavioral change coaching, including substituting for or completely stopping combusted cigarettes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov - NCT03084315.

Effect of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems on Cigarette Abstinence in Smokers with no Plans to Quit: Exploratory Analysis of a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

The extent to which use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) for smoking reduction leads to cigarette abstinence in smokers with no plans to quit smoking is unclear. This exploratory analysis examined the effects of ENDS delivering different amounts of nicotine on cigarette abstinence up to 24-week follow-up, in comparison to placebo or a behavioral substitute.

METHODS

This four-arm parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial took place at two academic medical centers in USA (Penn State Hershey and Virginia Commonwealth University). Participants were current adult smokers (N=520) interested in reducing but not planning to quit. They received brief advice and were randomized to one of four 24-week conditions, receiving either an eGo-style ENDS paired with 0, 8 or 36 mg/ml nicotine liquid (double-blind) or a cigarette-shaped tube, as a cigarette substitute (CS). Self-reported daily cigarette consumption and exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) were measured at all study visits. Outcomes included intent-to-treat, self-reported 7-day cigarette abstinence, biochemically confirmed by exhaled CO at 24 weeks after randomization.

RESULTS

At 24 weeks, significantly more participants in the 36 mg/ml condition (14/130, 10.8%) than in the 0 mg/ml condition (1/130, 0.8%) and the CS condition (4/130, 3.1%) were abstinent (relative risk = 14 [95% CI=1.9-104.9] and 3.5 [95% CI=1.2-10.4], respectively). The abstinence rate in the 8 mg/ml condition was 4.6% (6/130).

CONCLUSIONS

When smokers seeking to reduce smoking tried ENDS, few quit smoking in the short term. However, if smokers continued to use an ENDS with cigarette-like nicotine delivery, a greater proportion completely switched to ENDS, as compared with placebo or a cigarette substitute.

IMPLICATIONS

The extent to which use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) for smoking reduction leads to cigarette abstinence in smokers with no plans to quit smoking was unclear. This randomized trial found that ENDS with nicotine delivery approaching that of a cigarette are more effective in helping ambivalent smokers to quit cigarette smoking.

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.

Harm reduction for smokers living with HIV

Tobacco use is now a leading cause of death in people living with HIV in the USA. Increasing cessation rates in this group is a public health priority, yet the results of clinical trials aimed at optimising tobacco treatment strategies have been largely disappointing. Combinations of behavioural and pharmacological cessation therapies in people living with HIV have yielded increases in short-term quit rates, but few have shown long-term efficacy. Even with aggressive therapy combining intensive behavioural treatment with pharmacological agents, most smokers living with HIV continue to smoke. The generalised approach to tobacco treatment that prevails in guidelines and in clinical practices might do a disservice to these individuals, who represent a sizable segment of the population of people living with HIV. Harm reduction is a sensible and needed approach for smokers living with HIV who are unable or unwilling to quit. In this Viewpoint, we take an expansive view of harm reduction to include not only cutting down on cigarette intake for persistent smokers, but also reducing smoking's downstream health effects by increasing lung cancer screening and by controlling concurrent cardiovascular risk factors, especially hypertension and hyperlipidaemia.