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

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.

Challenges in legitimizing further measures against smoking in jurisdictions with robust infrastructure for tobacco control: how far can the authorities allow themselves to go?

BACKGROUND

According to a recently published study, approximately half of those who currently smoke in Norway have little or no desire to quit despite a hostile regulatory and socio-cultural climate for smoking. On this background, we discuss some challenges that regulators will face in a further tightening of structural measures to curb smoking.

MAIN BODY

Central to our discussion is the research literature concerned with the concept of state-paternalism in tobacco control-the line between an ethically justified interference with the freedom of those who smoke and an exaggerated infringement disproportionate to the same people's right to live as they choose. In countries with an already advanced infrastructure for tobacco control, this dilemma might become quite intrusive for regulators. We ask that if people, who smoke are aware of and have accepted the risks, are willing to pay the price, smoke exclusively in designated areas, and make decisions uninfluenced by persuasive messages from manufacturers-is a further tightening of anti-smoking measures still legitimate? Strengthening of the infrastructure for tobacco control can be seen as a "help" to people who-due to some sort of "decision failure"-continue to smoke against their own will. However, for those who want to continue smoking for reasons that for them appear rational, such measures may appear unwanted, punitive, and coercive. Is it within the rights of regulators to ignore peoples' self-determination for the sake of their own good? We problematize the "help" argument and discuss the authorities' right to elevate the zero-vision of smoking as universally applicable while at the same time setting up barriers to switching to alternative nicotine products with reduced risk.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that a further intensification of smoking control in countries that already have a well-developed policy in this area requires that regulators start to exploit the opportunity that lies in the ongoing diversification of the recreational nicotine market.

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.

Human abuse liability assessment of e-cigarettes: Why, what and how?

Cigarette smoking is the world's leading cause of preventable death and disease. Alternative nicotine products such as e-cigarettes have tobacco harm reduction potential, by providing smokers with an alternative form of nicotine delivery but with either the reduced presence or absence of the numerous harmful chemicals found in combustible cigarette smoke. One aspect of importance in determining the potential of e-cigarettes to provide a viable alternative to combustible cigarettes for smokers is their ability to cause dependence, also known as their abuse liability. E-cigarettes with little or no abuse liability would be unlikely to be used as a substitute for cigarettes, whereas at least some degree of abuse liability is acknowledged as supportive both to aiding cigarette substitution or complete cessation and to preventing relapse. Given this link between abuse liability and substitution efficacy, human studies assessing the abuse liability of e-cigarettes are important to determine their true harm reduction potential. In this review, the concept of tobacco product abuse liability is discussed, along with the primary elements-pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (subjective effects)-that need to be assessed to determine abuse liability. The review also presents a number of human abuse liability study design considerations and discusses what existing studies in the literature tell us about the abuse liability and harm reduction potential of e-cigarettes.

Using varenicline in combination with electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)

BACKGROUND

Varenicline is efficacious for smoking cessation, but a return to smokingusually occurs after treatment ends. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) may enhance smoking reduction and cessation by providing a behavioral substitute for smoking and may deter smoking in the long term if an individual's nicotine dependence can be transferred to ENDS. The goal of this study was to evaluate varenicline in conjunction with ENDS to promote switching to ENDS.

METHODS

Twenty-five individuals who smoked cigarettes, interested in switching but not seeking cessation treatment, received ENDS for 13 weeks; during weeks 2-13 they received varenicline. Assessments included self-reported cigarette and ENDS use, expired air carbon monoxide (CO), reward ratings, tolerability/side effects, and dependence measures.

RESULTS

Cigarette smoking decreased from 15.6 cigarettes/day (SD=5.6) at baseline to 2.8 cigarettes/day (SD=5.1) at week 13 (paired t(22)=10.24, p<0.0001). 28% of participants were confirmed to be abstinent in the last 4 weeks of treatment. ENDS use remained relatively constant, averaging 11.8 occasions per day (SD=10.6). Cigarette dependence (assessed by time to first use of the day) decreased after introduction of ENDS (paired t(23) = -3.27, p=0.003), and again after the first week of full-dose varenicline (paired t(23) = -4.27, p=0.0003). Dependence on ENDS did not change, starting out lower than cigarettes (paired t(21) = 5.52, p<0.0001), but ending higher (paired t(22) = 2.94, p=0.008). Smoking satisfaction declined markedly, while satisfaction for ENDS remained relatively constant. Treatment tolerability and adherence were high.

CONCLUSIONS

ENDS in combination with varenicline shows promise as a means to reduce dependence on cigarettes and facilitate switching from cigarettes to ENDS.

How do Smokers in a Snus-Prevalent Society Consider E-cigarettes, Snus, and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Products as Relevant Replacements for Cigarettes in the Event They Should Stop Smoking?

INTRODUCTION

Around 50 percent of the tobacco in Norway is consumed in the form of snus, a smokeless oral tobacco. We examined Norwegian smokers' openness, and thereby the potential reach, to use e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy products (NRT), and snus in the event of quitting smoking, in a society where snus use is common.

METHODS

Using data from an online survey of 4073 smokers from 2019 to 2021, we calculated predicted probabilities of smokers' being open, undecided, and not open to use e-cigarettes, snus, and NRT in the event they should quit smoking.

RESULTS

Among daily smokers, the probability of being open to use e-cigarettes in the event of quitting smoking was .32. The corresponding probabilities for using snus and NRT were .22 and .19. Snus was the product with the highest probability of not being open (.60). NRT had the highest probability of being undecided (.39). Among smokers who had never used e-cigarettes or snus, the probabilities of being open were .13 for e-cigarettes, .02 for snus and .11 for NRT.

CONCLUSIONS

In a snus-friendly norm climate where smokers have traditionally used snus as an alternative to cigarettes, the probability of using e-cigarettes in the event of smoking cessation was higher compared to both snus and NRT. However, among smokers who had never used e-cigarettes or snus, the likelihood of being open to use of NRT was similar to e-cigarettes, and higher than snus, which suggests that NRT may still play a role in smoking cessation.

IMPLICATIONS

In a snus-prevalent country in the endgame phase of the cigarette epidemic, where robust infrastructure for tobacco control in combination with the availability of snus has reduced smoking to a minimum, the remaining smokers seem to prefer e-cigarettes to snus if they should quit smoking. This indicates that availability of several nicotine alternatives might increase the likelihood of a future product replacement within the small group of remaining smokers.

Smoking reduction using electronic nicotine delivery systems in combination with nicotine skin patches

RATIONALE

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are used by smokers seeking to reduce combustible cigarette (CC) use, but the role of nicotine replacement vs. behavioral and sensory factors is still poorly understood. We hypothesized that providing nicotine from ENDS in addition to nicotine skin patches would promote smoking reduction relative to non-nicotine control ENDS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on smoking behavior of using nicotine vs. placebo ENDS in smokers using nicotine vs. placebo patches.

METHODS

Ninety-four daily smokers were enrolled in a study that randomly assigned them to receive ENDS with nicotine vs. without nicotine and skin patches with vs. without nicotine. Smoking reduction and cessation were assessed over an 8-week period by self-report and by expired air carbon monoxide (CO) measurements. The primary outcome was defined as reduction in expired air CO.

RESULTS

The use of nicotine in ENDS led to significant reductions in smoking (ENDS nicotine vs. placebo difference in CO change = -9.2 ppm; 90% CI (-1.5 ppm, -16.9 ppm)) and was highly correlated with reductions in self-reported cigarettes per day (r=0.6). The effect of nicotine in nicotine patches was not statistically significant (patch nicotine vs. placebo difference in CO change = -0.1 ppm; 90% CI (-7.8 ppm, 7.6 ppm)).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of nicotine in ENDS was associated with a large reduction in smoking. Additional studies will be needed to determine whether there may be additive effects of nicotine ENDS and nicotine patches on smoking abstinence.

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.

A critique of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council CEO statement on electronic cigarettes

This paper critically analyses a statement by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on e-cigarettes in May 2022 that will be used to guide national policy. We reviewed the evidence and the conclusions drawn in the NHMRC Statement. In our view, the Statement is not a balanced reflection of the benefits and risks of vaping because it exaggerates the risks of vaping and fails to compare them to the far greater risks of smoking; it uncritically accepts evidence of harms from e-cigarettes while adopting a highly sceptical attitude towards evidence of their benefits; it incorrectly claims that the association between adolescent vaping and subsequent smoking is causal; and it understates the evidence of the benefits of e-cigarettes in assisting smokers to quit. The Statement dismisses the evidence that vaping is probably already having a positive net public health effect and misapplies the precautionary principle. Several sources of evidence supporting our assessment were published after the NHMRC Statement's publication and are also referenced. The NHMRC Statement on e-cigarettes does not present a balanced assessment of the available scientific literature and fails to meet the standard expected of a leading national scientific body.

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.

Associations between nicotine vaping uptake and cigarette smoking cessation vary by smokers' plans to quit: longitudinal findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Most population studies that evaluate the relationship between nicotine vaping and cigarette cessation focus on limited segments of the smoker population. We evaluated vaping uptake and smoking cessation considering differences in smokers' plans to quit.

DESIGN

Longitudinal International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys were conducted in 2016, 2018 and 2020.

SETTING

This study was conducted in the United States, Canada, England and Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants of this study were adult daily cigarette smokers who had not vaped in the past 6 months at baseline and had participated in two or more consecutive waves of the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys (n = 2815).

MEASUREMENTS

Plans to quit cigarette smoking was assessed at baseline (within 6 months, beyond 6 months, not planning to quit) and at follow-up (within 6 months vs not within 6 months), cigarette smoking cessation was assessed at follow-up (smoking less than monthly [including complete cessation] vs daily/weekly/monthly smoking) and inter-wave vaping uptake was assesed between baseline and follow-up (none, only non-daily vaping and any daily vaping). Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate whether inter-wave vaping uptake was associated with smoking cessation at follow-up and with planning to quit at follow-up, each stratified by plans to quit smoking at baseline.

FINDINGS

Overall, 12.7% of smokers quit smoking. Smokers not initially planning to quit within 6 months experienced higher odds of smoking cessation when they took up daily vaping (32.4%) versus no vaping (6.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 8.58; 95% CI, 5.06-14.54). Among smokers planning to quit, smoking cessation rates were similar between those who did and did not take up daily vaping (25.1% vs 16.8%; AOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.91-4.00), although we could not account for potential use of cessation aids. Daily vaping uptake was associated with planning to quit smoking at follow-up among those initially not planning to quit (AOR,6.32; 95% CI, 4.17-9.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of nicotine vaping appears to be strongly associated with cigarette smoking cessation among smokers with no initial plans to quit smoking. Excluding smokers not planning to quit from studies on vaping and smoking cessation may underestimate potential benefit of daily vaping for daily smokers.

Part one: abuse liability of Vuse Solo (G2) electronic nicotine delivery system relative to combustible cigarettes and nicotine gum

Abuse liability (AL) of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) is relevant as the category increases in popularity as a potentially less-harmful alternative to cigarette smoking. AL assessments are important to the FDA in determining if a new product is appropriate for the protection of public health. This paper reports the results for Vuse Solo (G2 cartridge design) compared to high and low AL-comparators evaluated in an open-label, randomized crossover confinement AL study. The confinement design was adapted from previous ambulatory studies of Vuse Solo (G1 cartridge design) and included product familiarization sessions before each four-hour test session in which subjective measures, nicotine pharmacokinetics (PK), and physiological endpoints were assessed following a single 10-min ad libitum product use session. Product liking, intent to use again, suppression of urge to smoke, and nicotine PK were lower after use of Vuse Solo compared to cigarettes and higher after use of Vuse Solo compared to nicotine gum. No significant differences in blood pressure or heart rate were observed between the products pre- to post-product use. These data reinforce previous research and provide the scientific evidence to support regulatory decisions demonstrating that Vuse Solo has an AL profile lower than that of combustible cigarettes but higher than that of nicotine gum and, therefore, may be a suitable replacement for cigarette smoking for some adult smokers.

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.

Nicotine Delivery and Pharmacokinetics of an Electronic Cigarette Compared With Conventional Cigarettes in Chinese Adult Smokers: A Randomized Open-Label Crossover Clinical Study

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the nicotine pharmacokinetics of a commercial electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) relative to conventional cigarettes in Chinese adult smokers.

AIMS AND METHODS

A randomized, open-label, crossover clinical study was conducted on 23 healthy adult Chinese smokers. In two sessions, subjects used either the e-cigarettes with 30 mg/g nicotine in e-liquid or conventional cigarettes of a given brand, at one puff every 30 seconds for a total of 10 puffs. Blood samples were collected at specified time points for 4 hours after the first puff. Subjective effects on desire-to-smoke and physiological parameters such as heart rate and oxyhemoglobin saturation levels were also examined before and after using the two products.

RESULTS

The baseline-adjusted maximum nicotine concentration (Cmax-BL), time-to-peak nicotine concentration (Tmax), and nicotine absorption rate (Cmax-BL divided by Tmax) were found to be similar for the e-cigarette versus those of conventional cigarettes (p > .05). Total nicotine exposure measured as the area-under-curve (AUC0-t-BL) was significantly lower for the e-cigarette relative to that of conventional cigarettes. In addition, the subjects found that e-cigarettes were well tolerated under controlled puffing conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The test e-cigarettes achieved similar nicotine delivery and pharmacokinetic profiles to those of the comparator cigarettes, indicating that this e-cigarette could be a potential alternative to conventional cigarettes for those adult smokers.

IMPLICATIONS

There are no data in the published literature on the nicotine pharmacokinetics of e-cigarettes in Chinese smokers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the nicotine delivery and pharmacokinetic profile of a commercial e-cigarette brand compared with conventional cigarettes in Chinese adult smokers. After the use of test e-cigarettes, nicotine delivery and pharmacokinetic profile were similar to those of conventional cigarettes in Chinese adult smokers.

Flavor science in the context of research on electronic cigarettes

Thousands start smoking or vaping daily, despite long-standing efforts by public health authorities to curb initiation and use of nicotine containing products. Over the last 15 years, use of electronic nicotine delivery systems has increased dramatically, with a diverse range of products on the market, including pod-based, disposable, and refillable electronic cigarettes (eCigs). Originally intended for harm reduction and smoking cessation, eCigs may encourage nicotine use among never smokers, given the vast range of appealing flavors that are available. To better understand abuse liability and to facilitate appropriate regulations, it is crucial to understand the science of flavor, and flavor perception within the context of eCig use. Here, we (a) provide a brief primer on chemosensory perception and flavor science for addiction and nicotine researchers, and (b) highlight existing some literature regarding flavor and nicotine use, with specific attention given to individual differences in perception, and interaction between different sensory modalities that contribute to flavor. Dramatic increases in use of eCigs highlights the importance of flavor science in contemporary addiction research, both with regards to public health and regulatory efforts. Other recent work summarizes findings on flavored e-liquids and eCig use, but none have focused explicitly on chemosensory processes or flavor perception as they relate to appeal and use of such products. We argue flavor science needs to be considered as perceptual and behavioral phenomena, and not merely from analytical, toxicological and pharmacological perspectives; we help address this gap here.