1
|
Pesola F, Phillips-Waller A, Beard E, Shahab L, Sweanor D, Jarvis M, Hajek P. Effects of reduced-risk nicotine-delivery products on smoking prevalence and cigarette sales: an observational study. Public Health Res (Southampt) 2023; 11:1-39. [PMID: 37795840 DOI: 10.3310/rpdn7327] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background It is not currently clear what impact alternative nicotine-delivery products (electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco products and snus) have on smoking rates and cigarette sales. Objective To assess whether access to these products promotes smoking in the population. Design and data sources We examined associations of alternative nicotine product use and sales with smoking rates and cigarette sales overall, and in different age and socioeconomic groups, and compared smoking prevalence over time in countries with contrasting regulations of these products. For electronic cigarettes, we examined data from countries with historically similar smoking trajectories but differing current electronic cigarette regulations (United Kingdom and United States of America vs. Australia, where sales of nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes are banned); for heated tobacco, we used data from countries with state tobacco monopolies, where cigarette and heated tobacco sales data are available (Japan, South Korea), and for snus we used data from Sweden. Analysis methods We pre-specified dynamic time series analyses to explore associations between use and sales of alternative nicotine-delivery products and smoking prevalence and cigarette sales, and time series analyses to compare trends of smoking prevalence in countries with different nicotine product policies. Results Because of data and analysis limitations (see below), results are only tentative and need to be interpreted with caution. Only a few findings reached statistical significance and for most results the Bayes factor indicated inconclusive evidence. We did not find an association between rates of smoking and rates of the use of alternative nicotine products. The increase in heated tobacco product sales in Japan was accompanied by a decrease in cigarette sales. The decline in smoking prevalence seems to have been slower in Australia than in the United Kingdom overall, and slower than in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America among young people and also in lower socioeconomic groups. The decline in cigarette sales has also accelerated faster in the United Kingdom than in Australia. Limitations Most of the available data had insufficient data points for robust time series analyses. The assumption of our statistical approach that causal interactions are more likely to be detected when longer-term changes are screened out may not apply for short time series and in product interaction scenarios, where short-term fluctuations can be caused by, for example, fluctuations in prosperity or product supplies. In addition, due to dual use, prevalence figures for smoking and alternative product use overlap. The ecological study design limits the causal inferences that can be made. Longer time periods are needed for any effects of exclusive use of the new products on smoking prevalence to emerge. Conclusions We detected some indications that alternative nicotine products are competing with cigarettes rather than promoting smoking and that regulations that allow their sales are associated with a reduction rather than an increase of smoking, but the findings are inconclusive because of insufficient data points and issues with the assumptions of the pre-specified statistical analyses. Future work As further prevalence and sales data emerge the analyses will become more informative. Accessing sales figures in particular is the current research priority. Study registration The project is registered on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/bd3ah. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR129968) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca Pesola
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Anna Phillips-Waller
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Emma Beard
- University College London, Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, London, UK
| | - Lion Shahab
- University College London, Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, London, UK
| | - David Sweanor
- Faculty of Law and Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Martin Jarvis
- University College London, Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, London, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Przulj D, Pesola F, Myers Smith K, McRobbie H, Coleman T, Lewis S, Griffith C, Walton R, Whitemore R, Clark M, Ussher M, Sinclair L, Seager E, Cooper S, Bauld L, Naughton F, Sasieni P, Manyonda I, Hajek P. Helping pregnant smokers quit: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy. Health Technol Assess 2023; 27:1-53. [PMID: 37840301 PMCID: PMC10599072 DOI: 10.3310/agth6901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Some pregnant smokers try e-cigarettes, but effectiveness and safety of such use are unknown. Objectives To compare effectiveness and safety of nicotine patches and e-cigarettes in pregnancy. Design A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Setting Twenty-three hospitals across England, and a Stop Smoking Service in Scotland. Participants One thousand one hundred and forty pregnant daily smokers (12-24 weeks' gestation) motivated to stop smoking, with no strong preference for using nicotine patches or e-cigarettes. Interventions Participants in the e-cigarette arm were posted a refillable e-cigarette device with two 10 ml bottles of tobacco-flavoured e-liquid (18 mg nicotine). Participants in the nicotine patches arm were posted a 2-week supply of 15 mg/16-hour nicotine patches. Supplies were provided for up to 8 weeks. Participants sourced further supplies themselves as needed. Participants in both arms received support calls prior to their target quit date, on the quit date, and weekly for the next 4 weeks. Outcome measures The primary outcome was validated prolonged abstinence at the end of pregnancy. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included self-reported abstinence at different time points, treatment adherence and safety outcomes. Results Only 55% of self-reported abstainers mailed back useable saliva samples. Due to this, validated sustained abstinence rates were low (6.8% vs. 4.4% in the e-cigarettes and nicotine patches arms, respectively, risk ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.53; Bayes factor = 2.7). In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis that excluded abstainers using non-allocated products, the difference became significant (6.8% vs. 3.6%, risk ratio = 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 3.26; Bayes factor = 10). Almost a third of the sample did not set a target quit date and the uptake of support calls was low, as was the initial product use. At end of pregnancy, 33.8% versus 5.6% of participants were using their allocated product in the e-cigarettes versus nicotine patches arm (risk ratio = 6.01, 95% confidence interval 4.21 to 8.58). Regular use of e-cigarettes in the nicotine patches arm was more common than use of nicotine replacement products in the e-cigarette arm (17.8% vs. 2.8%). Rates of adverse events and adverse birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms, apart from participants in the e-cigarette arm having fewer infants with low birthweight (<2500 g) (9.6% vs. 14.8%, risk ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.90; Bayes factor = 10.3). Limitations Low rates of validation reduced the study power. A substantial proportion of participants did not use the support on offer sufficiently to test its benefits. Sample size may have been too small to detect differences in less frequent adverse effects. Conclusions E-cigarettes were not significantly more effective than nicotine patches in the primary analysis, but when e-cigarettes use in the nicotine patches arm was accounted for, e-cigarettes were almost twice as effective as patches in all abstinence outcomes. In pregnant smokers seeking help, compared to nicotine patches, e-cigarettes are probably more effective, do not pose more risks to birth outcomes assessed in this study and may reduce the incidence of low birthweight. Future work Routine monitoring of smoking cessation and birth outcomes in pregnant women using nicotine patches and e-cigarettes and further studies are needed to confirm these results. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN62025374 and Eudract 2017-001237-65. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dunja Przulj
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Francesca Pesola
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Katie Myers Smith
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Tim Coleman
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Sarah Lewis
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Christopher Griffith
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Robert Walton
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | | | - Miranda Clark
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Michael Ussher
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, UK; Institute of Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
| | - Lesley Sinclair
- Usher Institute and SPECTRUM Consortium, Centre for Population Health Sciences, Old Medical School, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Emily Seager
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Sue Cooper
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Linda Bauld
- Usher Institute and SPECTRUM Consortium, Centre for Population Health Sciences, Old Medical School, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Felix Naughton
- School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Peter Sasieni
- The Cancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
| | - Isaac Manyonda
- St George's University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Moore G, Hallingberg B, Brown R, McKell J, Van Godwin J, Bauld L, Gray L, Maynard O, Mackintosh AM, Munafò M, Blackwell A, Lowthian E, Page N. Impacts of EU Tobacco Products Directive regulations on use of e-cigarettes in adolescents in Great Britain: a natural experiment evaluation. Public Health Res (Southampt) 2023; 11:1-102. [PMID: 37452656 DOI: 10.3310/wtmh3198] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Background E-cigarettes are a popular smoking-cessation tool. Although less harmful than tobacco, use of e-cigarettes by non-smokers should be prevented. There is concern about the use of e-cigarettes by young people and that e-cigarettes may renormalise smoking. In May 2016, Tobacco Products Directive regulations aimed to reduce e-cigarettes' appeal to young people. Aims To examine the effects of the Tobacco Products Directive regulations on young people's use of e-cigarettes, and the role of e-cigarettes in renormalising smoking. Design A mixed-method natural experimental evaluation combining secondary analyses of survey data, with process evaluation, including interviews with young people, policy stakeholders, retailers and trading standards observers, and observations of retail settings. Settings Wales, Scotland and England. Participants Survey participants were aged 13-15 years, living in England, Scotland or Wales and participated in routinely conducted surveys from 1998 to 2019. Process evaluation participants included 14- to 15-year-olds in England, Scotland and Wales, policy stakeholders, trading standards offices and retailers. Intervention Regulation of e-cigarettes, including bans on cross-border advertising, health warnings and restrictions on product strength. Comparison group Interrupted time series design, with baseline trends as the comparator. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was ever e-cigarette use. Secondary outcomes included regular use, ever and regular smoking, smoking attitudes, alcohol and cannabis use. Data capture and analysis Our primary statistical analysis used data from Wales, including 91,687 young people from the 2013-19 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children and School Health Research Network surveys. In Scotland, we used the Scottish Schools Adolescent Lifestyle and Substance Use Survey and in England we used the Smoking Drinking and Drug Use surveys. The process evaluation included interviews with 73 young people in 2017 and 148 young people in 2018, 12 policy stakeholders, 13 trading standards officers and 27 retailers. We observed 30 retail premises before and after implementation. Data were integrated using the Medical Research Council's process evaluation framework. Results Ever smoking continued to decline alongside the emergence of e-cigarettes, with a slight slowing in decline for regular use. Tobacco Products Directive regulations were described by stakeholders as well implemented, and observations indicated good compliance. Young people described e-cigarettes as a fad and indicated limited interaction with the components of the Tobacco Products Directive regulations. In primary statistical analyses in Wales [i.e. short (to 2017) and long term (to 2019)], growth in ever use of e-cigarettes prior to Tobacco Products Directive regulations did not continue after implementation. Change in trend was significant in long-term analysis, although of similar magnitude at both time points (odds ratio 0.96). Data from England and Scotland exhibited a similar pattern. Smoking followed the opposite pattern, declining prior to the Tobacco Products Directive regulations, but plateauing as growth in e-cigarette use stalled. Limitations Alternative causal explanations for changes cannot be ruled out because of the observational design. Conclusions Young people's ever and regular use of e-cigarettes appears to have peaked around the time of the Tobacco Products Directive regulations and may be declining. Although caution is needed in causal attributions, findings are consistent with an effect of regulations. Our analysis provides little evidence that e-cigarettes renormalise smoking. More recent data indicate that declines in smoking are plateauing. Future work International comparative work to understand differences in use of e-cigarettes, and tobacco, within varying regulatory frameworks is a priority. Study registration This study is registered as ResearchRegistry4336. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Graham Moore
- Centre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Britt Hallingberg
- Centre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Rachel Brown
- Centre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Jennifer McKell
- Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
| | - Jordan Van Godwin
- Centre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | | | - Linsay Gray
- Medical Research Council/Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Olivia Maynard
- Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | | | - Anna Blackwell
- Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Emily Lowthian
- Centre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Nicholas Page
- Centre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, Pesola F, Smith KM, Bisal N, Li J, Parrott S, Sasieni P, Dawkins L, Ross L, Goniewicz M, Wu Q, McRobbie HJ. E-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy within the UK Stop Smoking Services: the TEC RCT. Health Technol Assess 2019; 23:1-82. [PMID: 31434605 PMCID: PMC6732716 DOI: 10.3310/hta23430] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Over the past few years, a large number of smokers in the UK have stopped smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. So far, UK Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) have been reluctant to include e-cigarettes among their treatment options because data on their efficacy compared with the licensed medications are lacking. OBJECTIVE The objective was to compare the efficacy of refillable e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, when accompanied by weekly behavioural support. DESIGN A randomised controlled trial comparing e-cigarettes and NRT. SETTING Three sites that provide local SSSs. PARTICIPANTS The participants were 886 smokers seeking help to quit smoking, aged ≥ 18 years, not pregnant or breastfeeding, with no strong preference to use or not to use NRT or e-cigarettes in their quit attempt, and currently not using NRT or e-cigarettes. A total of 886 participants were randomised but two died during the study (one in each study arm) and were not included in the analysis. INTERVENTIONS The NRT arm (n = 446) received NRT of their choice (single or combination), provided for up to 12 weeks. The e-cigarette arm (n = 438) received an e-cigarette starter pack and were encouraged to buy addtional e-liquids and e-cigarette products of their choice. Both arms received the same standard behavioural support. Participants attended weekly sessions at their SSS and provided outcome data at 4 weeks. They were then followed up by telephone at 6 and 12 months. Participants reporting abstinence or at least 50% reduction in cigarette consumption at 12 months were invited to attend for carbon monoxide (CO) validation. Participants/researchers could not be blinded to the intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was CO-validated sustained abstinence rates at 52 weeks. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included abstinence at other time points, reduction in smoke intake, treatment adherence and ratings, elicited adverse reactions, and changes in self-reported respiratory health. A cost-efficacy analysis of the intervention was also conducted. RESULTS The 1-year quit rate was 9.9% in the NRT arm and 18.0% in the e-cigarette arm (risk ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.58; p < 0.001). The e-cigarette arm had significantly higher validated quit rates at all time points. Participants in the e-cigarette arm showed significantly better adherence and experienced fewer urges to smoke throughout the initial 4 weeks of their quit attempt than those in the NRT arm, and gave their allocated product more favourable ratings. They were also more likely to be still using their allocated product at 1 year (39.5% vs. 4.3%, χ2 = 161.4; p < 0.001). Participants assigned to e-cigarettes reported significantly less coughing and phlegm at 1 year than those assigned to NRT (controlling for smoking status). A detailed economic analysis confirmed that, because e-cigarettes incur lower NHS costs than NRT and generate a higher quit rate, e-cigarette use is more cost-effective. LIMITATIONS The results may not be generalisable to other types of smokers or settings, or to cartridge-based e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS Within the context of multisession treatment for smokers seeking help, e-cigarettes were significantly more effective than NRT. If SSSs provide e-cigarette starter packs, it is likely to boost their success rates and improve their cost-efficacy. FUTURE WORK The efficacy of e-cigarettes provided with different levels of support will show whether smokers should be encouraged to switch to vaping within support services or whether e-cigarettes can be recommended with less intensive or no support. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60477608. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The trial was supported by the Cancer Research UK Prevention Trials Unit (grant A16893).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Hajek
- Health and Lifestyle Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Anna Phillips-Waller
- Health and Lifestyle Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Dunja Przulj
- Health and Lifestyle Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Francesca Pesola
- King's Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Katie Myers Smith
- Health and Lifestyle Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Natalie Bisal
- Health and Lifestyle Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Jinshuo Li
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Steve Parrott
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Peter Sasieni
- King's Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Lynne Dawkins
- Centre for Addictive Behaviours Research, School of Applied Sciences, London South Bank University, London, UK
| | | | - Maciej Goniewicz
- Department of Health Behavior, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Qi Wu
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Hayden J McRobbie
- Health and Lifestyle Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|