Non-inferiority trial comparing cigarette consumption, adoption rates, acceptability, tolerability, and tobacco harm reduction potential in smokers switching to Heated Tobacco Products or electronic cigarettes: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

The potential of new nicotine and tobacco products as tools for people who smoke to quit combustible cigarettes - a systematic review of common practices and guidance towards a robust study protocol to measure cessation efficacy

New types of nicotine and tobacco products like electronic cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products or nicotine pouches have been discussed as less harmful alternatives to combustible cigarettes and other toxic forms of tobacco products. Their harm reduction potential lay in the efficient transition away from smoking to those new products. Numerous studies addressing the cessation efficacy of ECs have been published with contradictory outcomes. Yet, a comprehensive Cochrane review concluded with high certainty on the cessation efficacy of ECs. This prompted us to perform a review to identify weaknesses in common study designs and to summarize best practices for the study design on the potential of new nicotine products as cessation aids. 120 articles retrieved from Medline were found to be eligible. Most of the studies in the field were interventional trials while observational studies played a minor role in the evaluation of smoking cessation. Efficacy was predominantly assessed for ECs in 77% of the reports while heated tobacco (17%) and non-combustible products (11%) were less frequently investigated up to now. Measures to determine the efficacy were questionnaire-based assessments as well as use documentation/prevalence and abstinence rates. Studies varied largely in their duration and sample size with medians of 3 months and 156.5 participants, respectively.With the help of this review, we identified several weaknesses in the common study designs. One major limitation in longitudinal trials was the lack of compliance measures suited to verify the use status over longer time periods, relying solely on self-reports. Moreover, the motivation of the participants to quit was rarely defined and a profound familiarization period was not taken into account for the majority of the studies. To what extent such weaknesses influence the outcome of the studies was beyond the scope of this review. We encourage researchers to consider the recommendations which resulted from this review in order to determine the abuse liability and cessation efficacy of the products in a more robust manner. Finally, we like to call attention to the missing data for low- and middle-income countries which would require quitting strategies most urgently to combat the tobacco smoking epidemic.

Comparing Effectiveness, tolerability, and Acceptability of Heated Tobacco ProductS vs. refillable Electronic cigarettes For cIgaREttes substitution: CEASEFIRE randomized controlled trial (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

People who smoke and who face challenges trying to quit or wish to continue to smoke may benefit by switching from traditional cigarettes to noncombustible nicotine delivery alternatives, such as heated tobacco products (HTPs) and electronic cigarettes (ECs). HTPs and ECs are being increasingly used to quit smoking, but there are limited data about their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted the first randomized controlled trial comparing quit rates between HTPs and ECs among people who smoke and do not intend to quit.

METHODS

We conducted a 12-week randomized noninferiority switching trial to compare effectiveness, tolerability, and product satisfaction between HTPs (IQOS 2.4 Plus) and refillable ECs (JustFog Q16) among people who do not intend to quit. The cessation intervention included motivational counseling. The primary endpoint of the study was the carbon monoxide-confirmed continuous abstinence rate from week 4 to week 12 (CAR weeks 4-12). The secondary endpoints included the continuous self-reported ≥50% reduction in cigarette consumption rate (continuous reduction rate) from week 4 to week 12 (CRR weeks 4-12) and 7-day point prevalence of smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

A total of 211 participants completed the study. High quit rates (CAR weeks 4-12) of 39.1% (43/110) and 30.8% (33/107) were observed for IQOS-HTP and JustFog-EC, respectively. The between-group difference for the CAR weeks 4-12 was not significant (P=.20). The CRR weeks 4-12 values for IQOS-HTP and JustFog-EC were 46.4% (51/110) and 39.3% (42/107), respectively, and the between-group difference was not significant (P=.24). At week 12, the 7-day point prevalence of smoking abstinence values for IQOS-HTP and JustFog-EC were 54.5% (60/110) and 41.1% (44/107), respectively. The most frequent adverse events were cough and reduced physical fitness. Both study products elicited a moderately pleasant user experience, and the between-group difference was not significant. A clinically relevant improvement in exercise tolerance was observed after switching to the combustion-free products under investigation. Risk perception for conventional cigarettes was consistently higher than that for the combustion-free study products under investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to HTPs elicited a marked reduction in cigarette consumption among people who smoke and do not intend to quit, which was comparable to refillable ECs. User experience and risk perception were similar between the HTPs and ECs under investigation. HTPs may be a useful addition to the arsenal of reduced-risk alternatives for tobacco cigarettes and may contribute to smoking cessation. However, longer follow-up studies are required to confirm significant and prolonged abstinence from smoking and to determine whether our results can be generalized outside smoking cessation services offering high levels of support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03569748; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03569748.

Reductions in biomarkers of exposure to selected harmful and potentially harmful constituents following exclusive and partial switching from combustible cigarettes to myblu™ electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) offer adult combustible cigarette smokers an alternative, potentially reduced harm, mode of nicotine delivery, attributed to fewer and reduced levels of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) in their aerosols compared to cigarette smoke. These two identical, randomised, open label, two-part studies aimed to compare levels of 15 biomarkers of exposure (BoE) to selected HPHCs associated with tobacco smoking in healthy US adult smoker subjects (n = 72). Following 9 days of exclusive use of a range of allocated myblu™ ENDS variants, subjects' levels of 14 non-nicotine BoE were substantially reduced compared to baseline values (combustible cigarette use), in the range of 46-97%. BoE reductions were sustained in subjects who continued myblu use exclusively (n = 25) for a further 5 days, and returned to near baseline levels in subjects who returned to exclusive combustible cigarette use (n = 21). Dual users (n = 24) demonstrated reductions in BoE to a lesser extent than with exclusive myblu use. Measured nicotine equivalents did not significantly change throughout the study. These data suggest exclusive use of ENDS provides adult smokers seeking an alternative to combustible cigarettes with substantial reductions in HPHC exposures whilst achieving satisfying levels of nicotine delivery. Dual use involving substitution of cigarettes may also provide some of this advantage, but to lesser extent. Overall, the data contribute to the weight of evidence that ENDS are an important tool in tobacco harm reduction for adult smokers unwilling to or uninterested in quitting smoking. Study 1: NCT04430634, study 2: NCT04429932, clinicaltrials.gov (10-06-2020).

Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence

BACKGROUND

Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e-cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers.  RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time-series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population-level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log-transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta-analysis where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time-series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow-up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes.  There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or continue smoking cigarettes, limited by imprecision and risk of bias (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 1713 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether risk of serious adverse events differed between groups due to very serious imprecision and risk of bias (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1472 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence for lower NNAL and COHb at follow-up in heated tobacco than cigarette smoking groups, limited by risk of bias (NNAL: LMD -0.81, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.55; I2 = 92%; 10 studies, 1959 participants; COHb: LMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.52; I2 = 96%; 9 studies, 1807 participants). Evidence for additional biomarkers of exposure are reported in the main body of the review. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events in smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or attempt abstinence from all tobacco, limited by risk of bias and imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 237 participants). Five studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred in either group (533 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that urine concentrations of NNAL at follow-up were higher in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group (LMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 382 participants). In addition, there was very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, for higher COHb in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group for intention-to-treat analyses (LMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.31; 3 studies, 212 participants), but lower COHb in per-protocol analyses (LMD -0.32, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.39; 2 studies, 170 participants). Evidence concerning additional biomarkers is reported in the main body of the review. Data from two time-series studies showed that the rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated following the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan. This evidence was of very low-certainty as there was risk of bias, including possible confounding, and cigarette sales are an indirect measure of smoking prevalence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No studies reported on cigarette smoking cessation, so the effectiveness of heated tobacco for this purpose remains uncertain. There was insufficient evidence for differences in risk of adverse or serious adverse events between people randomised to switch to heated tobacco, smoke cigarettes, or attempt tobacco abstinence in the short-term. There was moderate-certainty evidence that heated tobacco users have lower exposure to toxicants/carcinogens than cigarette smokers and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence of higher exposure than those attempting abstinence from  all tobacco. Independently funded research on the effectiveness and safety of HTPs is needed.  The rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated after the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan but, as data were observational, it is possible other factors caused these changes. Moreover, falls in cigarette sales may not translate to declining smoking prevalence, and changes in Japan may not generalise elsewhere. To clarify the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking prevalence, there is a need for time-series studies that examine this association.

Paying lip service to publication ethics: scientific publishing practices and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

Litigation forced the dissolution of three major tobacco industry-funded organisations because of their egregious role in spreading scientific misinformation. Yet in 2017, a new scientific organisation-the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW)-was launched, funded entirely by tobacco corporation Philip Morris International (PMI). Experts fear FSFW similarly serves to benefit its funder's scientific and political agenda. We present three case studies of FSFW's publishing practices to explore: whether FSFW and its affiliates are acting with scientific integrity in their attempts to publish research; how conflicts of interest (COI) are governed in the journals FSFW targets; whether scientific publishing needs to be better protected from the tobacco industry in light of this, and if so, how. FSFW and its grantees have resorted to repeated obfuscation when publishing their science. FSFW staff have failed to act transparently and arguably have sought control over editorial processes (at times facilitated by PR firm, Ruder Finn). FSFW-funded organisations (including its Italian 'Centre of Excellence') and researchers affiliated with FSFW (including those working as editors and peer-reviewers) have failed to disclose their links to FSFW and PMI. While journals also failed to apply their COI policies, including on tobacco industry-funded research, the findings highlight that such policies are almost entirely dependent on researchers fully declaring all potential COIs. The paper explores ways to address these problems, including via standardised reporting of COI and funding in journals; journal policies prohibiting publication of tobacco industry-funded science; development of an author-centric database of financial interests; and legally mandated tobacco industry financial contributions to fund science on new tobacco and nicotine products.

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.

NMU Is a Poor Prognostic Biomarker in Patients with Lung Adenocarcinoma

Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) is the most prevalent histologic type of lung cancer, associated with a high incidence rate and substantial mortality rate worldwide. Accumulating evidence shows that the aberrant expression of neuromedin U (NMU) contributes to the initiation and progression of cancer. Herein, we explored whether NMU could be adopted as a new diagnostic and therapeutic marker in LUAD. The UALCAN and GEPIA web resources were employed to assess data on the NMU expression in LUAD. The STRING web resource was used to develop the PPI (protein-protein interaction) network of NMU, whereas Cytoscape was applied for module analysis. The Gene Ontology (GO) and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analyses of NMU and the interacting proteins were examined using the WebGestalt tool. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier plotter tool. Results revealed that the NMU expression in LUAD was significantly higher than in the nonmalignant tissues. Moreover, higher NMU levels were dramatically related to shorter overall survival, first progression survival, and postprogression survival. The specific gene mutations G45V, R143T, and F152L of NMU occurred in LUAD samples and were associated with a worse prognosis in patients. KEGG and western blot analyses demonstrated an association of NMU with the cell cycle and the cAMP signaling cascade. Bioinformatic analysis and the in vitro experiments implicated NMU as a promising prognostic signature and treatment target for LUAD.

Identification of biomarkers specific to five different nicotine product user groups: Study protocol of a controlled clinical trial

Background

Assessing biomarker profiles in various body fluids is of large value to discern between the sole use of nicotine products. In particular, the assessment of the product compliance is required for long-term clinical studies. The objective of this study was the identification of biomarkers and biomarker patterns in body fluids, to distinguish between combustibles, heated tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, oral tobacco and oral/dermal nicotine products used for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), as well as a control group of non-users.

Methods

A controlled, single-center study was conducted with 60 healthy subjects, divided into 6 groups (5 nicotine product user groups and one non-user group) based on their sole use of the products of choice. The subjects were confined for 76 h, during which, free and uncontrolled use of the products was provided. Sample collections were performed according to the study time schedule provided in Table 2. The primary outcome will be validated through analysis of the collected biospecimens (urine, blood, saliva, exhaled breath and exhaled breath condensate) by means of untargeted omics approaches (i.e. exposomics, breathomics and adductomics). Secondary outcome will include established biomarker quantification methods to allow for the identification of typical biomarker patterns. Statistical analysis tools will be used to specifically discriminate different product use categories.

Results/Conclusions

The clinical trial was successfully completed in May 2020, resulting in sample management and preparations for the quantitative and qualitative analyses. This work will serve as a solid basis to discern between biomarker profiles of different nicotine product user groups. The knowledge collected during this research will be required to develop prototype diagnostic tools that can reliably assess the differences and evaluate possible health risks of various nicotine products.

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.