QuitNic: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Nicotine Vaping Products With Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation Following Residential Detoxification

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.

Examining e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation treatment: A critical umbrella review analysis

INTRODUCTION

This umbrella review identified the current high-quality systematic reviews on e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. What is the comparative effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared to other cessation treatments or approaches? We also investigated the systematic reviews for reporting biases.

METHODS

This umbrella review was based on the Methods for Overviews of Reviews (MOoR) framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR). The search was conducted in six databases and grey literature searches in four sources, plus four secondary searches. A Vote Counting Direction of Effect was selected for the analysis method because of high heterogeneity among the primary studies and the potential overweighting of data from two primary studies.

RESULTS

Sixteen systematic reviews were retrieved. Eight with an AMSTAR2 rating of moderate or high confidence were included, encompassing 24 randomized controlled trials. The analysis found that in 8 of 11 comparisons, e-cigarettes were more effective, and 3 of 11 comparisons reported no statistically significant difference. No reviews concluded that e-cigarettes were significantly less effective than any treatment or no treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis indicated that e-cigarettes are more effective than other treatments for smoking cessation. For ENDS compared solely to NRT, the evidence was mixed and still favored the effectiveness of ENDS. In any case, the success rates for cessation with ENDS was 10 % - 12 % at 6 months to one year, and the effect of relapse has not been sufficiently studied. New treatments and approaches are urgently needed.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023406165; International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/47711.

Perspectives on limiting tobacco access and supporting access to nicotine vaping products among clients of residential drug and alcohol treatment services in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco endgame strategies aim to drive down population smoking rates, the success of which can be improved with public buy-in, including from populations with high smoking rates such as alcohol and other drug (AOD) service clients. This study aimed to explore acceptability of tobacco retail and nicotine reduction, and subsidised nicotine vaping to support AOD service clients following a smoking cessation attempt.

METHODS

We interviewed 31 Australian AOD service clients who currently or previously smoked, following a 12-week randomised trial comparing nicotine replacement therapy with nicotine vaping product (NVP) for smoking cessation. Participants were asked how effectively three scenarios would support tobacco cessation: tobacco retailer reduction, very low-nicotine cigarette standard and subsidised NVP access. We thematically analysed participant views on how each approach would support tobacco abstinence.

RESULTS

Tobacco retailer reduction raised concerns about increasing travel and accessing cigarettes from alternate sources, with generally lower acceptability, though a range of perspectives were provided. Reducing nicotine in tobacco products was described as reducing appeal of smoking and potentially increasing illicit purchases of non-reduced nicotine products. Clients of AOD services were highly accepting of subsidised NVP access for tobacco cessation, as this would partly address financial and socioeconomic barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian tobacco control policy should consider how these approaches impact ease and likelihood of tobacco access by AOD service clients in relation to the general population. Understanding clients' acceptability of tobacco control and endgame measures can inform how to avoid potential unintended consequences for these clients.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

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

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical study protocol on electronic cigarettes and nicotine pouches for smoking cessation in Pakistan: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pakistan is one of most vulnerable low- and middle-income countries with 29 million adult active tobacco users. Smoking cessation services are lacking as the tobacco control initiatives have largely failed to address the smoking endemic. Over the last 5 years, Pakistan has witnessed the use of innovative tobacco harm reduction (THR) products such as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. However, their use remains limited. THR products are imported legally as consumer goods and are taxable. The lack of sufficient data for THR and its application is a challenge in gauging their effectiveness in assisting smokers quit combustible smoking. Evidence-based studies can help in measuring the effectiveness of e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches as smoking cessation aids.

METHOD

Keeping in view the study objectives, a sample size of 600 participants will be sufficient to assess the effectiveness of e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches for smoking cessation in Pakistan. Of these, 200 participants each will receive e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches along with basic care counselling, while the remaining 200 participants will only receive basic care counselling for 48 weeks. The association of participants' characteristics with smoking and health status will be based on the bivariate and multivariate analysis. The simple t-test and variance analysis will assess the differences in intervention indicators between the control and treatment groups. For the inferential analysis, the average treatment impact will be based on the quasi-experimental techniques such as difference in difference (DID) or propensity score matching (PMS).

DISCUSSION

The study will evaluate the participants at the baseline as they decide the quit date. After every 12 weeks, a follow-up survey with the participants will be conducted. Results are anticipated to inform the public, decision-makers, and researchers about the effects of using e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches in the short- and medium-term periods. Critically, the potential of e-cigarettes and other alternative nicotine delivery systems as smoking cessation aid will be assessed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05715164 . Registered on February 6, 2023.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Protocol version 1.0, 14-12-2022 Trial in progress and not yet recruiting participants. Estimated primary data collection date-April 2024.

Cigarette Smoking Abstinence Among Pregnant Individuals Using E-Cigarettes or Nicotine Replacement Therapy

Importance

Smoking cigarettes during pregnancy can impair maternal and child health, and pregnant individuals have increasingly used electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) for various reasons, including quitting smoking.

Objective

To assess smoking abstinence rates among pregnant individuals who used e-cigarettes compared with those who used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study is a secondary data analysis of phase 8 of the US Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, conducted between 2016 and 2020. Eligible participants included pregnant individuals who smoked combustible cigarettes within the 3 months before pregnancy and either used e-cigarettes or NRT during pregnancy. Data analysis was conducted from March 2022 to April 2023.

Exposures

Combustible cigarette use within 3 months before pregnancy and use of either e-cigarettes or NRT during pregnancy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the individual's self-reported smoking abstinence status during the last 3 months of pregnancy. Weighted percentages were reported and weighted multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association of e-cigarette use vs NRT with smoking abstinence. A propensity score was used to control for confounding by sociodemographics, pregnancy characteristics, prepregnancy smoking intensity, depression, behavioral support, and hookah use.

Results

The cohort included 1329 pregnant individuals (759 ≥25 years [60.2%]; 766 non-Hispanic White individuals [79.8%]) of whom 781 had an education level of high school or lower (61.4%), and 952 had an annual household income of $48 000 or less (81.5%). Of the 1329 individuals, 890 (unweighted percentage, 67.0%) were existing e-cigarette users, 67 (unweighted percentage, 5.0%) were new e-cigarette users, and 372 (unweighted percentage, 28.0%) were NRT users. Compared with individuals who used NRT during pregnancy, individuals who used e-cigarettes had a higher rate of smoking abstinence in late pregnancy (456 individuals [50.8%] vs 67 individuals [19.4%]; propensity score adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.47; 95% CI, 1.17-5.20; P = .02). In the secondary analysis stratified by the timing of e-cigarette use initiation, existing users of e-cigarettes who initiated before pregnancy had a higher smoking abstinence rate than NRT users (446 users [53.1%] vs 67 users [19.4%]; adjusted OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.23-5.51; P = .01). However, new e-cigarette users who initiated use during pregnancy had a similar smoking abstinence rate in late pregnancy when compared with NRT users (10 users [20.6%] vs 67 users [19.4%]; adjusted OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.22-5.87; P = .88).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that individuals who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy had a higher smoking abstinence rate in late pregnancy than individuals who used NRT, especially for those who initiated e-cigarette use before pregnancy, indicating that replacement of cigarettes with e-cigarettes during pregnancy may be a viable strategy for harm reduction.

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.

DASHES Protocol: Development and Feasibility Testing of a Tailored Community Programme to Support People in Recovery from Problematic Alcohol and Drug Use to Cut Down or Stop Smoking Using Co-Creation

BACKGROUND

Despite the continued global decline in adult tobacco prevalence, rates continue to be significantly higher in groups with problematic drug or alcohol use (PDA). It is estimated that people with alcohol, drug or mental health problems account for approximately half of all smoking deaths. In the UK, there are free stop smoking services for the general population. However, these services have been criticized as unsuitable for people in recovery from PDA due to their design, time-limited support, strict requirement for smoking abstinence and lack of consideration of harm reduction approaches. This has led to calls for alternative approaches to support this marginalized and underserved group. This research study seeks to respond to this call by co-creating and feasibility testing a tailored, trauma-informed service specifically for people seeking help for PDA, who are not in immediate crisis, and who may also want to reduce or stop their tobacco smoking.

METHODS

The mixed-method study design has two parts. The development study (part one) will use participatory peer research methods to work with the target client group and key stakeholders involved in service delivery, commissioning, and policy to design the service (intervention). The feasibility study (part two) will test the delivery of the intervention protocol and capture data that will enable the assessment of whether progression to a future pilot randomized control trial is merited.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome of this study will be a theoretically informed, co-created intervention with the potential to improve population health by supporting people with problematic drug or alcohol use to cut down or stop tobacco smoking.

Electronic cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have been frequently used for smoking cessation. The aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes versus NRT for smoking cessation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library from inception to 10 October 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing e-cigarettes versus NRT for smoking cessation. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for eligibility. Paired authors extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and used GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

The study included five RCTs with 1748 participants. The meta-analysis suggested the e-cigarettes versus NRT increased the ≥6 months continuous abstinence rate (RR=1.67; 95% CI: 1.21-2.28; 55 more per 1000 participants, low certainty), and 7-day point abstinence rate at ≥6 months follow-up (RR=1.43; 95% CI: 1.19-1.72; 84 more per 1000, low certainty). However, we found no evidence that e-cigarettes versus NRT increased 3-6 months continuous abstinence rate (RR=1.07; 95% CI: 0.73-1.57; 10 more per 1000, very low certainty) and <3 months continuous abstinence rate (RR=1.20; 95% CI: 0.90-1.60; 54 more per 1000, low certainty); similar results were found at <3 months follow-up (RR=1.19; 95% CI: 0.92-1.54; 55 more per 1000, very low certainty) and 3-6 months follow-up in 7-day point abstinence rate (RR=1.01; 95% CI: 0.70-1.44; 2 more per 1000, very low certainty). The adverse events were not significant between e-cigarettes and NRT other than throat irritation (RR=1.27; 95% CI: 1.13-1.42; 118 more per 1000, low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarettes appeared to be superior to NRT in ≥6 months continuous abstinence rate and 7-day point abstinence rate. At short-term duration, we found no evidence that e-cigarettes compared to NRT increased the <6 months continuous abstinence rate and 7-day point abstinence rate.

E-cigarettes and nicotine abstinence: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a therapeutic intervention compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on nicotine abstinence.

METHODS

Two authors independently searched the PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for articles published up to and including 10 July 2021. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which nicotine e-cigarettes were compared to NRT among current cigarette users. The primary outcome was abstaining from all nicotine-delivery devices. Secondary outcomes were 1) allocated product use (e-cigarettes or NRT) among successful cigarette quitters and 2) quitting cigarettes at the end of the trial using fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel models.

RESULTS

We included four RCTs representing 1598 adult participants (51.0% females). The mean age of participants in these studies ranged from 41 to 54 years, while average baseline smoking ranged from 14 to 21 cigarettes per day. Compared to NRT, e-cigarette use was associated with lower nicotine abstinence rates at the longest follow-up (risk ratio 0.50 (95% CI 0.32-0.77)). Among successful cigarette quitters, the risk of allocated product use by the end of the observational time was higher for e-cigarette users compared to NRT (risk ratio 8.94 (95% CI 3.98-20.07)). E-cigarette users had higher cigarette smoking cessation rates compared to NRT users (risk ratio 1.58 (95% CI 1.20-2.08)).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention for smoking cessation may lead to permanent nicotine dependence.

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.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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