A study to investigate changes in the levels of biomarkers of exposure to selected cigarette smoke constituents in Japanese adult male smokers who switched to a non-combustion inhaler type of tobacco product

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Binary classification of users of electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco through biomarkers to assess similarity with current and former smokers: machine learning applied to the population assessment of tobacco and health study

BACKGROUND

Exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents in cigarette smoke is a risk factor for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Tobacco products that could reduce exposure to these constituents have been developed. However, the long-term effects of their use on health remain unclear. The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study is a population-based study examining the health effects of smoking and cigarette smoking habits in the U.S.

POPULATION

Participants include users of tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. In this study, we attempted to evaluate the population-wide effects of these products, using machine learning techniques and data from the PATH study.

METHODS

Biomarkers of exposure (BoE) and potential harm (BoPH) in cigarette smokers and former smokers in wave 1 of PATH were used to create binary classification machine-learning models that classified participants as either current (BoE: N = 102, BoPH: N = 428) or former smokers (BoE: N = 102, BoPH: N = 428). Data on the BoE and BoPH of users of electronic cigarettes (BoE: N = 210, BoPH: N = 258) and smokeless tobacco (BoE: N = 206, BoPH: N = 242) were input into the models to investigate whether these product users were classified as current or former smokers. The disease status of individuals classified as either current or former smokers was investigated.

RESULTS

The classification models for BoE and BoPH both had high model accuracy. More than 60% of participants who used either one of electronic cigarettes or smokeless tobacco were classified as former smokers in the classification model for BoE. Fewer than 15% of current smokers and dual users were classified as former smokers. A similar trend was found in the classification model for BoPH. Compared with those classified as former smokers, a higher percentage of those classified as current smokers had cardiovascular disease (9.9-10.9% vs. 6.3-6.4%) and respiratory diseases (19.4-22.2% vs. 14.2-16.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Users of electronic cigarettes or smokeless tobacco are likely to be similar to former smokers in their biomarkers of exposure and potential harm. This suggests that using these products helps to reduce exposure to the harmful constituents of cigarettes, and they are potentially less harmful than conventional cigarettes.

Part three: a randomized study to assess biomarker changes in cigarette smokers switched to Vuse Solo or Abstinence

Biomarkers of exposure (BoE) can help evaluate exposure to combustion-related, tobacco-specific toxicants after smokers switch from cigarettes to potentially less-harmful products like electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). This paper reports data for one (Vuse Solo Original) of three products evaluated in a randomized, controlled, confinement study of BoE in smokers switched to ENDS. Subjects smoked their usual brand cigarette ad libitum for two days, then were randomized to one of three ENDS for a 7-day ad libitum use period, or to smoking abstinence. Thirteen BoE were assessed at baseline and Day 5, and percent change in mean values for each BoE was calculated. Biomarkers of potential harm (BoPH) linked to oxidative stress, platelet activation, and inflammation were also assessed. Levels decreased among subjects randomized to Vuse Solo versus Abstinence, respectively, for the following BoE: 42-96% versus 52-97% (non-nicotine constituents); 51% versus 55% (blood carboxyhemoglobin); and 29% versus 96% (nicotine exposure). Significant decreases were observed in three BoPH: leukotriene E4, 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2, and 2,3-dinor thromboxane B2 on Day 7 in the Vuse Solo and Abstinence groups. These findings show that ENDS use results in substantially reduced exposure to toxicants compared to smoking, which may lead to reduced biological effects.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

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.

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.

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.

Heated Tobacco Products: A Review of Current Knowledge and Initial Assessments

The health risks of tobacco smoking have been documented in numerous studies and smoking rates have declined in developed countries over the last 50 years. Today, we know that cigarette smoking is the major cause of preventable deaths due to tobacco smoke induced diseases. As a consequence of an increased awareness of smoking-related health risks, heated tobacco products (HTPs) are marketed as reduced toxicant alternatives to conventional tobacco products. Manufacturers claim that levels of toxicants and hazardous compounds are significantly reduced, implying that inhalation of the modified aerosol is less harmful compared to conventional cigarettes. In this manuscript, previous assessments of HTPs are briefly summarized, including a short discussion on challenges with the adaption of standard analytical methods used for tobacco smoke. The reliability of analytical data is important for risk assessment approaches that are based on reduced toxicant exposure. In order to assess a putative reduction of health risks, an integrated study design is required that should include clinical studies and epidemiology data. One manufacturer applied for a classification as a Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) in the United States, based on extensive toxicological studies that have also been published. However, data are not yet sufficient for a reliable assessment or recognition of putatively reduced health risks. Challenges regarding a classification in Europe are also discussed briefly in this review.

Effects of Switching to the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 Menthol, Smoking Abstinence, or Continued Cigarette Smoking on Biomarkers of Exposure: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label, Multicenter Study in Sequential Confinement and Ambulatory Settings (Part 1)

Introduction

The menthol Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (mTHS) is a newly developed candidate modified-risk tobacco product intended to reduce exposure to the harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) of conventional cigarette (CC) smoke. This study examined the impact of switching to mTHS on biomarkers of exposure to HPHCs relative to menthol CCs (mCCs) and smoking abstinence (SA).

Methods

In this three-arm, parallel-group study, 160 Japanese adult smokers (23–65 years; smoking ≥10 mCCs per day) were randomized to mTHS (n = 78), mCC (n = 42), or SA (n = 40) for 5 days in confinement and 85 days in ambulatory settings. Endpoints included biomarkers of exposure to HPHCs, human puffing topography, safety, and subjective effects of smoking measures.

Results

After 5 days of product use, the concentrations of carboxyhemoglobin, 3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid, monohydroxybutenyl mercapturic acid, and S-phenylmercapturic acid were 55%, 49%, 87%, and 89% lower (p < .001), respectively, in the mTHS group than in the mCC group. Other biomarkers of exposure (measured as secondary endpoints) were 50%–94% lower in the mTHS group than in the mCC group on day 5. These reductions in the mTHS group were maintained at day 90, similar to the SA group. Switching to mTHS was associated with changes in human puffing topography (shorter puff intervals and more frequent puffs). The urge-to-smoke and smoking satisfaction levels on day 90 were similar in the mTHS and the mCC groups.

Conclusion

Switching from mCCs to mTHS significantly reduced exposure to HPHCs relative to continuing smoking mCCs with concentrations similar to those observed following SA in Japanese adult smokers.

Implications

This randomized study compared the impact of switching to a modified-risk tobacco product candidate mTHS on biomarkers of exposure to HPHCs of cigarette smoke relative to continuing smoking cigarettes or abstaining from smoking in sequential confinement and ambulatory settings. The study showed that switching to mTHS was associated with significant biomarker reductions within 5 days in confinement, these reductions being maintained throughout the ambulatory setting up to day 90. The results provide evidence that switching to mTHS reduces real-life exposure to HPHCs in adult smokers.

Effects of reduced exposure to cigarette smoking on changes in biomarkers of potential harm in adult smokers: results of combined analysis of two clinical studies

Purpose: Nonconventional vapor products (NVP), designed to reduce exposure to cigarette smoke toxicants (CSTs), could cause changes in biomarkers of potential harm (BoPH). Although, NVPs reduced CSTs exposure compared to conventional cigarettes (CC), the changes in the BoPH values varied among the studies. Hence, further information on BoPH using NVPs is needed. Material and methods: The data of two similarly designed studies using a kind of NVP, a noncombustion and nonheating inhaler type of smokeless tobacco product (NCIT) used under 31-day confinement, were pooled, and the differences in 15 BoPH between smokers and nonsmokers at baseline and between the 1 mg tar CC (CC1) group and NCIT group at Day 28/29 were analyzed. Results: At baseline, the levels of eight BoPH (red blood cells, white blood cells, 8-epi-prostaglandin F2α, 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine, malondialdehyde, 11-dehydrothromboxane B2, total cholesterol and glucose) were significantly different between smokers and nonsmokers. At Day 28/29, the levels of six BoPH were significantly different between NCIT and CC1 (8-epi-prostaglandin F2α, malondialdehyde, 11-dehydrothromboxane B2: CC1 > NCIT, total bilirubin, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol: CC1 < NCIT). Conclusions: Reduced exposure to CSTs has favorable effects on BoPH associated with oxidative stress, antioxidant capacity and platelet activation/coagulation but not in lipid metabolism.

["Heat not burn" tobacco devices as new tobacco industry products: health risks]

Increased tobacco control measures in recent years have directed the tobacco industry to develop alternative tobacco products, such as "heat not burn" (HnB) tobacco devices that are implied to be less hazardous than conventional cigarettes. There are extensive studies from manufacturers available, which show that the emissions of HnB tobacco devices have significantly lower levels of harmful substances compared to conventional cigarettes. In addition, manufacturers have published studies to investigate whether switching from a conventional tobacco cigarette to the HnB product reduces possible health risks.The purpose of this report is to review current studies by manufacturers and independent institutions as well as to discuss possible reduced health hazards.The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) has carried out its own studies of selected analytes in the emissions of one HnB product confirming the lower levels of harmful substances in the emissions. The results are consistent with data from other independent studies. The nicotine content in the emissions is in the same range as the nicotine emissions of conventional cigarettes, which suggests a comparable addictiveness and dependence potential. Manufacturers have reported mutagenic effects of emissions by HnB tobacco devices that, however, are considerably weaker compared to conventional cigarettes. Nevertheless, the use of the HnB tobacco product remains associated with health risks.Switching from conventional cigarettes to tobacco heaters can significantly reduce the consumer's exposure to harmful substances. However, this article also illustrates that it is still unclear to what extent the reduced levels lead to lowered health risks. Therefore more independent studies, but also long-term studies, are needed.

Assessment of the exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents in healthy Japanese smokers using a novel tobacco vapor product compared with conventional cigarettes and smoking abstinence

The objectives of this clinical study were to demonstrate a reduction in exposure to selected harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), and to assess product use behavior, in Japanese healthy adult smokers who switched to a novel tobacco vapor product (NTV). 60 smokers were randomly assigned for 5 days to either (a) a group who switched to an NTV (n = 20), (b) a group who continued to smoke their own brand of conventional cigarettes (CC, n = 20) or (c) a smoking abstinence group (SA, n = 20). Fifteen biomarkers of exposure (BoEs) to 14 HPHCs and pyrene were measured at baseline, day 3 and 5. Product use behavior was assessed by measuring product consumption, nicotine uptake and puffing topography. During investigations, increases were observed in product consumption and total puff volume in NTV group subjects as compared to baseline. Additionally, nicotine uptake in the NTV group was approximately half that observed in the CC group. BoE values were significantly reduced in the NTV group as compared to those in the CC group. Significantly, the magnitude of the reduction in exposure to HPHCs observed in the NTV group (49-94%) was close to that observed for the SA group (39-95%).

Effects of Switching to the Menthol Tobacco Heating System 2.2, Smoking Abstinence, or Continued Cigarette Smoking on Clinically Relevant Risk Markers: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label, Multicenter Study in Sequential Confinement and Ambulatory Settings (Part 2)

Introduction

Modified-risk tobacco products are expected to reduce exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents of cigarette smoke, and ultimately reduce the health burden of smoking-related diseases. Clinically relevant risk markers of smoking-related diseases inform about the risk profile of new tobacco products in the absence of in-market epidemiological data. The menthol Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (mTHS) is a modified-risk tobacco product in development as an alternative to cigarettes (conventional cigarettes [CCs]).

Methods

In this parallel-group study, Japanese adult smokers (23-65 years; ≥10 mCCs/day) were randomized to mTHS, menthol CCs (mCC), or smoking abstinence (SA) for 5 days in confinement and 85 days in ambulatory settings. Endpoints included biomarkers of exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents and clinically relevant risk markers of smoking-related diseases.

Results

One-hundred and sixty participants were randomized to the mTHS (n = 78), mCC (n = 42), and SA (n = 40) groups. Switching to the mTHS was associated with reductions in biomarkers of exposure compared with continuing mCCs. Reductions in 8-epi-prostaglandin F2α (biomarker of oxidative stress), 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2 (biomarker of platelet activation), soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1 (biomarker of endothelial function), and an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (biomarker of lipid metabolism) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (biomarker of lung function) occurred in the mTHS group compared with the mCC group. The changes in the mTHS group approached those in the SA group.

Conclusions

Switching from mCCs to mTHS was associated with improvements in clinically relevant risk markers linked to mechanistic pathways involved in smoking-related diseases.

Implications

In this three-way randomized study, switching from menthol cigarettes to mTHS for 5 days in confinement and 85 days in ambulatory settings was associated with reductions in biomarkers of exposure to cigarette smoke, and changes were observed in clinically relevant biomarkers of oxidative stress (8-epi-prostaglandin F2α), platelet activity (11-dehydro-thromboxane B2), endothelial function (soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1), lipid metabolism (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), similar to the SA group. The results suggest that switching to the mTHS has the potential to reduce the adverse health effects of conventional cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are electronic devices that heat a liquid into an aerosol for inhalation. The liquid usually comprises propylene glycol and glycerol, with or without nicotine and flavours, and stored in disposable or refillable cartridges or a reservoir. Since ECs appeared on the market in 2006 there has been a steady growth in sales. Smokers report using ECs to reduce risks of smoking, but some healthcare organizations, tobacco control advocacy groups and policy makers have been reluctant to encourage smokers to switch to ECs, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. Smokers, healthcare providers and regulators are interested to know if these devices can help smokers 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 safety and effect of using 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 from 2004 to January 2016, together with reference checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which current smokers (motivated or unmotivated to quit) were randomized to EC or a control condition, and which measured abstinence rates at six months or longer. As the field of EC research is new, we also included cohort follow-up studies with at least six months follow-up. We included randomized cross-over trials, RCTs and cohort follow-up studies that included at least one week of EC use for assessment of adverse events (AEs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, and we used the most rigorous definition available (continuous, biochemically validated, longest follow-up). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study, and where appropriate we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified over 1700 records, from which we include 24 completed studies (three RCTs, two of which were eligible for our cessation meta-analysis, and 21 cohort studies). Eleven of these studies are new for this version of the review. We identified 27 ongoing studies. Two RCTs compared EC with placebo (non-nicotine) EC, with a combined sample size of 662 participants. One trial included minimal telephone support and one recruited smokers not intending to quit, and both used early EC models with low nicotine content and poor battery life. We judged the RCTs to be at low risk of bias, but under the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes as 'low' or 'very low', because of imprecision due to the small number of trials. A 'low' grade means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. A 'very low' grade means we are very uncertain about the estimate. Participants using an EC were more likely to have abstained from smoking for at least six months compared with participants using placebo EC (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.96; placebo 4% versus EC 9%; 2 studies; 662 participants. GRADE: low). The one study that compared EC to nicotine patch found no significant difference in six-month abstinence rates, but the confidence intervals do not rule out a clinically important difference (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34; 584 participants. GRADE: very low).Of the included studies, none reported serious adverse events considered related to EC use. The most frequently reported AEs were mouth and throat irritation, most commonly dissipating over time. One RCT provided data on the proportion of participants experiencing any adverse events. The proportion of participants in the study arms experiencing adverse events was similar (ECs vs placebo EC: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34 (298 participants); ECs vs patch: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22 (456 participants)). The second RCT reported no statistically significant difference in the frequency of AEs at three- or 12-month follow-up between the EC and placebo EC groups, and showed that in all groups the frequency of AEs (with the exception of throat irritation) decreased significantly over time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking in the long term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. None of the included studies (short- to mid-term, up to two years) detected serious adverse events considered possibly related to EC use. The most commonly reported adverse effects were irritation of the mouth and throat. The long-term safety of ECs is unknown. In this update, we found a further 15 ongoing RCTs which appear eligible for this review.