Quitting Smoking: E-cigarette vs NRT
Successful smoking cessation with electronic cigarettes in smokers with a documented history of recurring relapses: a case series
Pasquale Caponnetto, Riccardo Polosa, Cristina Russo, Carmelo Leotta & Davide Campagna
The most important message from this case series is that these smokers, with a documented history of recurring relapses, were able to quit smoking and to remain abstinent for at least six months after taking up an electronic cigarette.
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial
Christopher Bullen, Colin Howe, Murray Laugesen, Hayden McRobbie, Varsha Parag, Jonathan Williman, Natalie Walker
657 people were randomised (289 to nicotine e-cigarettes, 295 to patches, and 73 to placebo e-cigarettes) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
At 6 months, verified abstinence was 7·3% (21 of 289) with nicotine e-cigarettes, 5·8% (17 of 295) with patches, and 4·1% (three of 73) with placebo e-cigarettes
A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette
Riccardo Polosa, Brad Rodu, Pasquale Caponnetto, Marilena Maglia, Cirino Raciti
Smokers of any age can reap substantial health benefits by quitting. In fact, no other single public health effort is likely to achieve a benefit comparable to large-scale smoking cessation.
E-cigs might be the most promising product for tobacco harm reduction to date, because, besides delivering nicotine vapour without the combustion products that are responsible for nearly all of smoking’s damaging effect, they also replace some of the rituals associated with smoking behaviour.
Nicotine’s beneficial effects include correcting problems with concentration, attention and memory, as well as improving symptoms of mood impairments. Keeping such disabilities at bay right now can be a much stronger motivation to continue using nicotine than any threats of diseases that may strike years and years in the future.
Nicotine’s beneficial effects can be controlled, and the detrimental effects of the smoky delivery system can be attenuated, by providing the drug via less hazardous delivery systems. Although more research is needed, e-cigs appear to be effective cigarette substitutes for inveterate smokers, and the health improvements enjoyed by switchers do not differ from those enjoyed by tobacco/nicotine abstainers.
Electronic cigarettes and vaping: a new challenge in clinical medicine and public health. A literature review
Dominic L. Palazzolo
When compared to the harmful effects of smoking, these studies suggest that vaping could be used as a possible “harm reduction” tool. There is evidence supporting e-cigarettes as an aide for smoking cessation, at least as successful as currently available FDA-approved NRTs.
Real-world effectiveness of e-cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation: a cross-sectional population study
Jamie Brown, Emma Beard, Daniel Kotz, Susan Michie, Robert West
Conclusion: “Among smokers who have attempted to stop without professional support, those who use e-cigarettes are more likely to report continued abstinence than those who used a licensed NRT product bought over-the-counter or no aid to cessation. This difference persists after adjusting for a range of smoker characteristics such as nicotine dependence.”
E-Cigarette Versus Nicotine Inhaler: Comparing the Perceptions and Experiences of Inhaled Nicotine Devices
Michael B. Steinberg, Mia Hanos Zimmermann, Cristine D. Delnevo, M. Jane Lewis, Parth Shukla, Elliot J. Coups, Jonathan Foulds
“In conclusion, during this brief trial, the e-cigarette was found to be more acceptable, provided more satisfaction and rewards, and had higher perceived benefit than the nicotine inhaler. These findings may explain why the e-cigarette has become popular among smokers while the inhaler has not achieved the same favourability. Based on this difference, e-cigarettes could have the potential to become “tobacco cigarette substitutes,” owing to their high acceptance and perceived effectiveness. While toxicants have been identified in e-cigarettes, they are present at orders of magnitude lower than tobacco cigarettes. As such, e-cigarettes may hold value as a harm reduction strategy among those unwilling or unable to quit. However, given the large variation in the market with respect to brands, more data are needed to demonstrate their efficacy and safety, and to allow physicians to more appropriately inform their patients about these products.”
E-cigarettes: a developing public health consensus
Joint statement on e-cigarettes by Public Health England and other UK public health organisations
From: Public Health England, Action on Smoking and Health, Association of Directors of Public Health, British Lung Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Faculty of Public Health, Fresh North East, Healthier Futures, Public Health Action, Royal College of Physicians, Royal Society for Public Health, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK Health Forum
We all agree that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than smoking. One in two lifelong smokers dies from their addiction. All the evidence suggests that the health risks posed by e-cigarettes are relatively small by comparison but we must continue to study the long-term effects.
And yet, millions of smokers have the impression that e-cigarettes are at least as harmful as tobacco
The public health opportunity is in helping smokers to quit, so we may encourage smokers to try vaping but we certainly encourage vapers to stop smoking tobacco completely.
We know that e-cigarettes are the most popular quitting tool in the country with more than 10 times as many people using them than using local stop smoking services
The current national evidence is that in the UK regular e-cigarette among youth use is almost exclusively confined to those young people who have already smoked, and youth smoking prevalence is continuing to fall
We should not forget what is important here. We know that smoking is the number one killer in England and we have a public health responsibility to provide smokers with the information and the tools to help them quit smoking completely and forever.
Discussions between health professionals and smokers about nicotine vaping products: results from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey
Shannon Gravely, James F. Thrasher, K. Michael Cummings, Janine Ouimet, Ann McNeill, Gang Meng, Eric N. Lindblom, Ruth Loewen, Richard J. O’Connor, Mary E. Thompson, Sara C. Hitchman, David Hammond, Bryan W. Heckman, Ron Borland, Hua-Hie Yong, Tara Elton-Marshall, Maansi Bansal-Travers, Coral Gartner, Geoffrey T. Fong
Despite the need for more evidence on their efficacy and long‐term safety, NVPs are now a more popular method for cessation than licensed NRT and prescription stop‐smoking medications in many countries.
In light of this, HPs should be prepared to provide balanced information about NVPs, particularly to smokers who are unable to stop smoking with approved cessation therapies, and for those who are requesting guidance regarding NVPs as a smoking cessation aid
Overall, the results from this study have shown that discussions between smokers and HPs about both quitting smoking, and the possible role NVPs could play as a cessation aid, were infrequent in the four countries in 2016. This may represent a lost opportunity for encouraging quitting smoking by providing a potentially attractive option to help smokers to quit.
E-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy within the UK Stop Smoking Services: the TEC RCT
Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, Pesola F, Smith KMyers, Bisal N, Li J, Parrott S, Sasieni P, Dawkins L, Ross L, Goniewicz M, Wu Q, McRobbie HJ.
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.
The 1-year quit rate was 9.9% in the NRT arm and 18.0% in the e-cigarette arm.
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
Participants assigned to e-cigarettes reported significantly less coughing and phlegm at 1 year than those assigned to NRT
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.
Cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy in stop smoking services in England (TEC study): a randomized controlled trial
Jinshuo Li, Peter Hajek, Francesca Pesola, Qi Wu, Anna Phillips-Waller, Dunja Przulj, Katie Myers Smith, Natalie Bisal, Peter Sasieni, Lynne Dawkins, Louise Ross, Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz, Hayden McRobbie, Steve Parrott
Using e‐cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid with standard behavioural support in stop‐smoking services in England is likely to be more cost‐effective than using nicotine replacement therapy in the same setting.
Effect of Electronic Cigarettes on Smoking Reduction and Cessation in Korean Male Smokers: A Randomized Controlled Study
Seung-Hwa Lee, Sang-Hyun Ahn, Yoo-Seock Cheong
In our study, the effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation was similar compared with that of nicotine gum, a well-documented NRT. In addition, e-cigarettes were well tolerated by the study population. Therefore, the use of e-cigarettes as an NRT may be considered for smoking-cessation purposes.
A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy
Peter Hajek, Anna Phillips-Waller, Dunja Przulj, Francesca Pesola, Katie Myers Smith, Natalie Bisal, Jinshuo Li, M.Phil, Steve Parrott, Peter Sasieni, Lynne Dawkins, Louise Ross, Maciej Goniewicz, Qi Wu, Hayden J. McRobbie
Results: A total of 886 participants underwent randomization. The 1-year abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group, as compared with 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 2.58; P<0.001). Among participants with 1-year abstinence, those in the e-cigarette group were more likely than those in the nicotine-replacement group to use their assigned product at 52 weeks (80% [63 of 79 participants] vs. 9% [4 of 44 participants]). Overall, throat or mouth irritation was reported more frequently in the e-cigarette group (65.3%, vs. 51.2% in the nicotine-replacement group) and nausea more frequently in the nicotine-replacement group (37.9%, vs. 31.3% in the e-cigarette group). The e-cigarette group reported greater declines in the incidence of cough and phlegm production from baseline to 52 weeks than did the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk for cough, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9; relative risk for phlegm, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of wheezing or shortness of breath.
Conclusion: E-cigarettes were more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy, when both products were accompanied by behavioural support.
Nicotine patches used in combination with e-cigarettes (with and without nicotine) for smoking cessation: a pragmatic, randomised trial
Natalie Walker, Varsha Parag, Marjolein Verbiest, George Laking, Murray Laugesen, Christopher Bullen
In summary, when looking at continuous abstinence from smoking, provision of patches plus a nicotine e-cigarette resulted in three to seven more smokers per 100 quitting long-term (depending on the analyses done) than with patches plus a nicotine-free e-cigarette. The smaller than anticipated sample size meant the study was not sensitive enough to pick up a definitive finding for the second comparison, although analyses suggest combination nicotine therapy—ie, use of a slow release nicotine patch, together with a faster-acting oral nicotine product (in this case a nicotine e-cigarette)—could result in five to ten more smokers per 100 quitting long-term than with monotherapy (ie, nicotine patches alone). Our findings are consistent with the current findings of the Cochrane review of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and contribute to the growing body of evidence from randomised trials on the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.
QuitNic: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Nicotine Vaping Products With Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation Following Residential Detoxification
Billie Bonevski, Victoria Manning, Olivia Wynne, Coral Gartner, Ron Borland, Amanda L Baker, Catherine J Segan, Eliza Skelton, Lyndell Moore, Ramez Bathish, Simon Chiu, Ashleigh Guillaumier, Dan I Lubman
This pilot study showed that smoking cessation support involving options for nicotine replacement and Quitline-delivered cognitive behavioural counselling is attractive to people after they have been discharged from SUD (Substance Use Disorder) treatment.
Retention was 63% at 6-weeks and 50% at 12-weeks. At 12-weeks, 68% of the NRT group reported using combination NRT while 96% of the NVP group used the device. Acceptability ratings for the products were high in both groups. At 12-weeks, 14% of the NVP group and 18% of the NRT group reported not smoking at all in the last 7 days. Mean CPD (Cigarettes Per Day) among continued smokers decreased significantly between baseline to 12-weeks in both groups; from 19.91 to 4.72 for the NVP group (p<0.001) and from 20.88 to 5.52 in the NRT group (p<0.001). Cravings and withdrawal symptoms significantly decreased for both groups.
Effectiveness of Electronic Cigarettes in Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Igor Grabovac, Moritz Oberndorfer, Jismy Fischer, Winfried Wiesinger, Sandra Haider, Thomas Ernst Dorner
Our results suggest that nicotine ECs may be more effective in smoking cessation when compared with placebo ECs or NRT. When compared with counseling alone, nicotine ECs are more effective short term, but its effectiveness appears to diminish with later follow-ups. Given the small number of studies, heterogeneous design, and the overall moderate to low quality of evidence, it is not possible to offer clear recommendations.