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

Association of anxiety and depression symptoms with perceived health risk of nicotine vaping products for smoking cessation

As tobacco smoking prevalence is unacceptably high for the one in five Australians reporting a mental health condition in the past year, multiple cessation supports are needed to reduce tobacco-related disease. Nicotine vaping product (NVP)-facilitated smoking cessation is one option requiring a medical prescription in Australia. Yet, people easily obtain NVPs via non-prescription channels. As mental health impacts quitting intentions and health system engagement, this study examined how presence of anxiety and depression symptoms may be associated with perceived health risk of using NVPs from prescription or non-prescription sources for smoking cessation. We used cross-sectional South Australian (15 years +) 2022 survey data on vaping, smoking, anxiety, and depression. Robust linear regression was used to examine the association of anxiety and depression symptoms and nicotine addiction concern on perceived health risk of using NVPs from prescription or non-prescription sources. For prescription NVPs, vaping was associated with lower perceived health risk (b=-0.732). Higher perceived addiction risk was associated with higher perceived health risk from prescription NVPs (b=0.784). For non-prescription NVPs, vaping (b=-0.661) or smoking (b=-0.310) was associated with lower perceived health risk, and higher perceived addiction risk (b=0.733) was associated with a higher perceived health risk. Although anxiety and depression were not directly associated with NVP health risk perceptions, vaping while having depression symptoms was associated with higher perceived health risk ratings for prescription (b=0.700) but not non-prescription sources. People with depression who vape may see health risk barriers in NVP prescription access for smoking cessation, a smoking cessation support gap.

[Electronic cigarettes: harm reduction or harm prolongation?]

This paper deals with the question of whether electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) can minimize the proven harm of smoking tobacco or may lead to a long-term harm. While the British Royal College of Physicians recommends smokers to use e-cigarettes as a substitute for tobacco products, the German Society for Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine advises smokers against using e-cigarettes. The harm reduction strategy is based on three hypotheses. Hypothesis 1: It is assumed that e-cigarettes cause less damage to health than tobacco cigarettes. Hypothesis 2: It is postulated that smokers are motivated to switch from conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes. Hypothesis 3: It is assumed that e-cigarettes are an effective means for quitting smoking with few side effects. Although the long-term health consequences of e-cigarette use remain unknown, there is increasing evidence that e-cigarettes are toxic, harmful to cardiovascular system, respiratory health and potentially carcinogenic. Population-representative epidemiological surveys have shown that three-quarters of all current e-cigarette users in Germany smoke tobacco at the same time. In a few randomized clinical trials, e-cigarettes showed higher success rates compared to nicotine replacement products. As over-the-counter consumer products, a large number of studies have found no advantage for e-cigarettes under real conditions. In addition, e-cigarettes prolong nicotine dependence compared to nicotine replacement products. According to the current state of knowledge, the hypotheses behind the harm minimization strategy using e-cigarettes must be regarded as refuted. It therefore appears ethically problematic when doctors recommend e-cigarettes to their patients as a substitute for smoking.

Electronic Cigarette Usage Patterns and Perceptions in Adult Australians

Despite their increasing popularity, and Australia's unique regulatory environment, how and why Australian adults use e-cigarettes and their perceptions of their safety, efficacy and regulation have not been extensively reported before. In this study, we screened 2217 adult Australians with the aim of assessing these questions in a sample of current or former e-cigarette users. A total of 505 out of 2217 respondents were current or former e-cigarette users, with only these respondents completing the full survey. Key findings of this survey included the high proportion of respondents who indicated they were currently using e-cigarettes (307 out of 2217 = 13.8%), and the high proportion of current e-cigarette users that were also smokers (74.6%). The majority of respondents used e-liquids containing nicotine (70.3%), despite it being illegal in Australia without a prescription, and the majority bought their devices and liquids in Australia (65.7%). Respondents reported using e-cigarettes in a variety of places, including inside the home, inside public places (where it is illegal to smoke tobacco cigarettes), and around other people-which has implications for second and third hand exposures. A significant proportion of current e-cigarette users (30.6%) thought that e-cigarettes were completely safe to use long-term, although in general, there was a large amount of uncertainty/ambivalence with respect to perceptions of e-cigarette safety and efficacy as smoking cessation tools. This study shows that e-cigarette use is common in Australia, and that appropriate dissemination of unbiased research findings on their safety and efficacy in smoking cessation is urgently required.

Incidence and risk factors for five-year recurrent disc herniation after primary single-level lumbar discectomy

To identify the incidence and risk factors for five-year same-site recurrent disc herniation (sRDH) after primary single-level lumbar discectomy. Secondary outcome was the incidence and risk factors for five-year sRDH reoperation. A retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data and patient-reported outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), between 2008 and 2019. Postoperative sRDH was identified from clinical notes and the centre's MRI database, with all imaging providers in the region checked for missing events. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate five-year sRDH incidence. Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent variables predictive of sRDH, with any variable not significant at the p < 0.1 level removed. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Complete baseline data capture was available for 733 of 754 (97.2%) consecutive patients. Median follow-up time for censored patients was 2.2 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.0 to 5.0). sRDH occurred in 63 patients at a median 0.8 years (IQR 0.5 to 1.7) after surgery. The five-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for sRDH was 12.1% (95% CI 9.5 to 15.4), sRDH reoperation was 7.5% (95% CI 5.5 to 10.2), and any-procedure reoperation was 14.1% (95% CI 11.1 to 17.5). Current smoker (HR 2.12 (95% CI 1.26 to 3.56)) and higher preoperative ODI (HR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.03)) were independent risk factors associated with sRDH. Current smoker (HR 2.15 (95% CI 1.12 to 4.09)) was an independent risk factor for sRDH reoperation. This is one of the largest series to date which has identified current smoker and higher preoperative disability as independent risk factors for sRDH. Current smoker was an independent risk factor for sRDH reoperation. These findings are important for spinal surgeons and rehabilitation specialists in risk assessment, consenting patients, and perioperative management.

"They're sleek, stylish and sexy:" selling e-cigarettes online

OBJECTIVE

We examined the product range, marketing strategies, access and marketing claims made by Australian and New Zealand (NZ) online e-cigarette retailers.

METHODS

Twenty Australian (n=10) and NZ (n=10) e-cigarette retail websites were identified via Google using a combination of keywords nominated by an expert panel and identified via a literature review: 'e-cigarette', 'e-cigs', 'vape', and 'vaping', combined with 'Australia', 'AU', 'New Zealand' and 'NZ' and then examined.

RESULTS

Products were extensive (disposable, pod-based, reusable, replacement parts), 95% (n=19) offered 'Starter Kits,' flavoured e-liquid (n=1,032), most containing nicotine (70%, n=14). Most retailers (85%, n=17) offered price discounts and free delivery. There were unsubstantiated health claims (80%, n=16), cessation claims (65%, n=13) and cost-benefit claims (50%, n=10) promoting e-cigarette use. Most (n=14) website age verification features simply required the purchaser to indicate they were aged 18 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Although e-cigarette regulations are different in Australia and NZ, the online product range, marketing strategies, access and marketing claims were similar and sold e-liquid containing nicotine. The health and cessation e-cigarette marketing claims were outlandish and unsubstantiated.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

Most purchasing of e-cigarettes occurs online. Regulations and enforcement to limit access and stop unsubstantiated marketing claims must be a public health priority.

Electronic Cigarettes or Vaping: Are There Any Differences in the Profiles, Use and Perceptions between a Developed and a Developing Country?

The use of electronic cigarettes or vaping is currently increasing in popularity globally. Debate continues regarding their potential role for smoking cessation. We aimed to compare the profiles, use and perceptions of using e-cigarettes amongst online forum users in a developed and a developing country. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among members of different popular online forums in Australia and Bangladesh who were current or ex-users of e-cigarettes. There were 422 study participants, 261 (62%) from Australia and 161 (38%) from Bangladesh. The mean age was 36.3 (±12) years and 83% were men. Australians were more likely to be exclusive users of e-cigarettes (70% vs. 30%, AOR 3.05 [95% CI 1.63–5.71]), but less likely to be dual users of smoking and e-cigarettes (43% vs. 57%, 0.36 [0.19–0.69]); they were also more likely to mention that the perceived reasons for using were their low cost, good taste/flavour, safety and assistance in reducing or quitting smoking (66% vs. 34%, 5.10 [2.04–12.8]), but less likely to mention a social/cool image as a reason for use (23% vs. 77%, 0.11 [0.01–0.87]) compared with Bangladeshi participants. About two-thirds of the participants in both countries perceived the use of e-cigarettes as less addictive than cigarettes and more than three-quarters perceived them as less harmful. E-cigarette users in Australia were more likely to use them to reduce or quit cigarettes compared with those in Bangladesh, and dual use was common in Bangladesh. These findings warrant the consideration of precautions for promoting e-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for smoking cessation in developing countries, such as Bangladesh.

How to manage cigarette smoking in kidney transplant candidates and recipients?

Tobacco smoking is a frequent problem affecting many kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients. The negative impact of active smoking on KT outcomes has been demonstrated. Consequently, most guidelines strongly recommend quitting smoking before considering kidney transplantation. However, nicotine addiction is a complex multifactorial disease and only 3–5% of the patients who try to quit by themselves achieve prolonged abstinence. Smoking cessation programmes (SCPs) have proven their efficacy in the general population to increase the rate of quitting and should therefore be proposed to all smoking KT candidates and recipients. Nevertheless, SCPs have not been evaluated in the KT field and not all KT centres have easy access to these programmes. In this work, we aim to review the current knowledge on the subject and provide an overview of the available interventions to help smoking patients quit. We detail non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical approaches and discuss their use in KT candidates and recipients.

La protection des enfants et des adolescents contre les risques du vapotage

Le vapotage chez les jeunes comporte des risques importants pour la santé et la sécurité des enfants et des adolescents canadiens. Le présent document de principes fournit de l'information générale sur le vapotage et les produits et dispositifs qui y sont liés, traite des méfaits à court et à long terme associés à leur utilisation et propose des stratégies de prévention et d'abandon pour les jeunes vapoteurs ou ceux qui sont à risque de commencer à vapoter. Le vapotage chez les jeunes est associé à un risque accru d'usage de tabac et de substances psychoactives, de troubles de santé mentale, de pneumopathie, de cardiopathie et de blessures accidentelles. Le vapotage ne doit pas servir d'outil d'abandon du tabac chez les jeunes, en raison de son manque d'efficacité et des données probantes sur les méfaits qu'il occasionne. De nombreuses stratégies préventives et thérapeutiques utilisées pour l'abandon du tabac, y compris les stratégies comportementales et pharmacologiques, peuvent être adaptées pour aider les jeunes à arrêter de vapoter. Des recommandations sont formulées pour les intervenants communautaires et les décideurs.

Protecting children and adolescents against the risks of vaping

Youth vaping presents significant risks for the health and safety of Canadian children and adolescents. This statement provides background information about vaping, vaping products, and related devices, discusses the short- and long-term harms known to be associated with their use, and offers prevention and cessation strategies for youth who vape or are at risk for starting. Youth vaping is associated with increased risk for tobacco and other substance use, mental health problems, pulmonary and cardiovascular disease, and unintentional injuries. Vaping should not be used as a smoking cessation tool for youth, due to lack of effectiveness and evidence of harm. Many preventive and treatment strategies used for tobacco cessation, including behavioural and pharmacological options, can be adapted to help youth quit vaping. Recommendations for community stakeholders and policy makers are included.

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.

Association between electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems with initiation of tobacco use in individuals aged < 20 years. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review described the association between electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENDS/ENNDS) use among non-smoking children and adolescents aged <20 years with subsequent tobacco use.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases and the grey literature up to end of September 2020. Prospective longitudinal studies that described the association between ENDS/ENNDS use, and subsequent tobacco use in those aged < 20 years who were non-smokers at baseline were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Data were extracted by two reviewers and pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. We generated unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) describing associations between ENDS/ENNDS and tobacco use.

FINDINGS

A total of 36 publications met the eligibility criteria, of which 25 were included in the systematic review (23 in the meta-analysis) after exclusion of overlapping studies. Sixteen studies had high to moderate risk of bias. Ever users of ENDS/ENNDS had over three times the risk of ever cigarette use (ARR 3·01 (95% CI: 2·37, 3·82; p<0·001, I2: 82·3%), and current cigarette use had over two times the risk (ARR 2·56 (95% CI: 1·61, 4·07; p<0·001, I2: 77·3%) at follow up. Among current ENDS/ENNDS users, there was a significant association with ever (ARR 2·63 (95% CI: 1·94, 3·57; p<0·001, I2: 21·2%)), but not current cigarette use (ARR 1·88 (95% CI: 0·34, 10·30; p = 0·47, I2: 0%)) at follow up. For other tobacco use, ARR ranged between 1·55 (95% CI 1·07, 2·23) and 8·32 (95% CI: 1·20, 57·04) for waterpipe and pipes, respectively. Additionally, two studies examined the use of ENNDS (non-nicotine devices) and found a pooled adjusted RR of 2·56 (95% CI: 0·47, 13·94, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

There is an urgent need for policies that regulate the availability, accessibility, and marketing of ENDS/ENNDS to children and adolescents. Governments should also consider adopting policies to prevent ENDS/ENNDS uptake and use in children and adolescents, up to and including a ban for this group.

Are e-cigarette use and vaping associated with increased respiratory symptoms and poorer lung function in a population exposed to smoke from a coal mine fire?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

E-cigarette use has become increasingly prevalent, but there is some evidence demonstrating potential harms with frequent use. We aimed to identify the profiles of e-cigarette users from a regional community in Australia and investigate the associations of e-cigarettes with respiratory symptoms and lung function.

METHODS

A total of 519 participants completed a cross-sectional study. Exposure to e-cigarettes was collected via a validated questionnaire. Respiratory symptoms were evaluated via a self-reported questionnaire and lung function measured with spirometry and forced oscillation technique (FOT). Linear and logistic regression models were fitted to investigate the associations between e-cigarettes and outcomes, while controlling for confounders such as tobacco smoking.

RESULTS

Of the 519 participants, 46 (9%) reported e-cigarette use. Users tended to be younger (mean ± SD 45.2 ± 14.5 vs. 55.3 ± 16.0 years in non-users), concurrently using tobacco products (63% vs. 12% in non-users), have a mental health diagnosis (67% vs. 37% in non-users) and have self-reported asthma (63% vs. 42% in non-users). After controlling for known confounders, chest tightness (OR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.9, p = 0.02) was associated with e-cigarette use. Spirometry was not different after adjustment for confounding. However, FOT showed more negative reactance and a greater area under the reactance curve in e-cigarette users than non-users.

CONCLUSION

E-cigarette use was associated with increased asthma symptoms and abnormal lung mechanics in our sample, supporting a potential health risk posed by these products. Vulnerable populations such as young adults and those with mental health conditions have higher usage, while there is high concurrent tobacco 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 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.

[Smoking Cessation with E-Cigarettes? - Ad Hoc Statement of the German Respiratory Society (DGP)]

The German Respiratory Society (DGP) turns against the e-cigarette as a means for harm reduction because of potential health risk and dangers to young people. The aerosol of e-cigarettes contains toxic ingredients that have been shown to be damaging to the lungs, the cardiovascular system and the immune system and are potentially carcinogenic. Studies on e-cigarettes as a means of smoking cessation are not very convincing, in order to favor e-cigarettes over nicotine replacement therapy, which have been tried and tested for many years, or other drugs that reduce the desire to smoke.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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