1
|
Lindson N, Butler AR, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Hajek P, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Livingstone-Banks J, Morris T, Hartmann-Boyce J. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 1:CD010216. [PMID: 38189560 PMCID: PMC10772980 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Tom Morris
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Lindson N, Butler AR, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Fanshawe TR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 11:CD010216. [PMID: 36384212 PMCID: PMC9668543 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 30.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van der Eijk Y, Tan Ping Ping G, Ong SE, Tan Li Xin G, Li D, Zhang D, Min Shuen L, Kee Seng C. E-Cigarette Markets and Policy Responses in Southeast Asia: A Scoping Review. Int J Health Policy Manag 2022; 11:1616-1624. [PMID: 33906338 PMCID: PMC9808234 DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.25] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2020] [Accepted: 03/13/2021] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The global e-cigarette market has proliferated and is increasingly dominated by transnational tobacco companies. While Southeast Asian countries have received relatively little attention in e-cigarette research, the region represents an area of potentially untapped growth for the industry. We review the e-cigarette situation in Southeast Asia in terms of the e-cigarette markets, advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes, reported health impacts of e-cigarette use, and policy responses in the region. METHODS We examined e-cigarette market data from the Euromonitor Global Market Information Database (GMID) Passport database, searched in the academic literature, grey literature and news archives for any reports or studies of e-cigarette related diseases or injuries, e-cigarette marketing, and e-cigarette policy responses in Southeast Asian countries, and browsed the websites of online e-cigarette retailers catering to the region's active e-cigarette markets. RESULTS In 2019, e-cigarettes were sold in six Southeast Asian markets with a total market value of $595 million, projected to grow to $766 million by 2023. E-commerce is a significant and growing sales channel in the region, with most of the popular or featured brands in online shops originating from China. Southeast Asian youth are targeted with a wide variety of flavours, trendy designs and point of sale promotions, and several e-cigarette related injuries and diseases have been reported in the region. Policy responses vary considerably between countries, ranging from strict bans to no or partial regulations. CONCLUSION Although Southeast Asia's e-cigarette market is relatively nascent, this is likely to change if transnationals invest more heavily in the region. Populous countries with weak e-cigarette regulations, notably Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines, are desirable targets for the transnationals. Regulatory action is needed to prevent e-cigarette use from becoming entrenched into these societies, especially among young people.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yvette van der Eijk
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Grace Tan Ping Ping
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Suan Ee Ong
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Research for Impact, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Grace Tan Li Xin
- Department of Political Science, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - David Li
- Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Dijin Zhang
- Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Loo Min Shuen
- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Chia Kee Seng
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Butler AR, Lindson N, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Fanshawe TR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 9:CD010216. [PMID: 34519354 PMCID: PMC8438601 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Lindson N, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Butler AR, Fanshawe TR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD010216. [PMID: 33913154 PMCID: PMC8092424 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bonevski B, Manning V, Wynne O, Gartner C, Borland R, Baker AL, Segan CJ, Skelton E, Moore L, Bathish R, Chiu S, Guillaumier A, Lubman DI. QuitNic: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Nicotine Vaping Products With Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation Following Residential Detoxification. Nicotine Tob Res 2021; 23:462-470. [PMID: 32770246 PMCID: PMC7885782 DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2019] [Accepted: 07/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Introduction The QuitNic pilot trial aimed to test the feasibility of providing a nicotine vaping product (NVP) compared with combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to smokers upon discharge from a smoke-free residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment service. Methods QuitNic was a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial. At discharge from residential withdrawal, 100 clients received telephone Quitline behavioral support and either 12-week supply of NRT or an NVP. Treatment adherence and acceptability, self-reported abstinence, cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), frequency of cravings, and severity of withdrawal symptoms were assessed at 6 and 12 weeks. Results are reported for complete cases and for abstinence outcomes, penalized imputation results are reported where missing is assumed smoking. Results Retention on 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 among continued smokers decreased significantly between baseline to 12 weeks in both groups; from 19.91 to 4.72 for the NVP group (p < .001) and from 20.88 to 5.52 in the NRT group (p < .001). Cravings and withdrawal symptoms significantly decreased for both groups. Conclusions Clients completing residential withdrawal readily engaged with smoking cessation post-treatment when given the opportunity. Further research is required to identify the most effective treatments postwithdrawal for this population at elevated risk of tobacco-related harm. Trial registration number ACTRN12617000849392 Implications This pilot study showed that smoking cessation support involving options for nicotine replacement and Quitline-delivered cognitive behavioral counseling is attractive to people after they have been discharged from SUD treatment. Both nicotine vaping products and nicotine replacement therapies were highly acceptable and used by participants who reported reductions in cravings for cigarettes and perceptions of withdrawal symptoms and reductions in number of cigarettes smoked. Some participants self-reported abstinence from cigarettes—around one in five reported having quit smoking cigarettes at 12 weeks postdischarge. The results have significant public health implications for providing quit support following discharge from SUD treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Billie Bonevski
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Victoria Manning
- Monash Addiction Research Centre and Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.,Turning Point, Eastern Health, Richmond, Australia
| | - Olivia Wynne
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Coral Gartner
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.,Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Queensland Alliance of Environmental Health Sciences, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia
| | - Ron Borland
- The Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Amanda L Baker
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Catherine J Segan
- The Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Centre for Health Policy, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Eliza Skelton
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Lyndell Moore
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Ramez Bathish
- Monash Addiction Research Centre and Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.,Turning Point, Eastern Health, Richmond, Australia
| | - Simon Chiu
- Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), Lambton, NSW, Australia
| | - Ashleigh Guillaumier
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Dan I Lubman
- Monash Addiction Research Centre and Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.,Turning Point, Eastern Health, Richmond, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Lindson N, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Butler AR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 10:CD010216. [PMID: 33052602 PMCID: PMC8094228 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 94] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Scheibein F, McGirr K, Morrison A, Roche W, Wells JSG. An exploratory non-randomized study of a 3-month electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) intervention with people accessing a homeless supported temporary accommodation service (STA) in Ireland. Harm Reduct J 2020; 17:73. [PMID: 33046080 PMCID: PMC7549237 DOI: 10.1186/s12954-020-00406-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2020] [Accepted: 08/18/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Smoking is endemic amongst people accessing homeless services, and they are disproportionately affected by smoking-related diseases. This paper reports on the results of a 3-month small scale intervention which explored the efficacy, challenges and opportunities of using electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) to support cessation of tobacco smoking with people accessing an Irish supported temporary accommodation (STA) homeless service. It considers the results of this intervention with reference to the balance of harms between the use of vaping to support smoking cessation and continued smoking. METHODS Twenty-three participants were recruited. Demographic data, carbon monoxide (CO) measurements, homelessness status and smoking history were recorded. Participants were given an ENDS device and two 10-ml bottles containing e-liquid available in several flavours and at several strengths. Participants could pick up new bottles on a weekly basis. At weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12, the Fagerström Test and Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale (MPSS) were administered. RESULTS Over 75% of the residents in the participating hostel were recruited (23/30). However, there was a substantial loss to follow-up (n = 14) as a result of data protection issues, the transient nature of the population of interest and non-compliance with the intervention. Self-reported reductions in cigarette consumption were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001). However, reductions in carbon monoxide measurements were not statistically significant. Decreases in Fagerström Nicotine Dependence Test were statistically significant (p = 0.001), but decreases in MPSS "urge to smoke" and "strength of urges" composite scores were not. Reported side effects included coughing, runny nose, bleeding nose, slight sweating, dizziness, increased phlegm and a burning sensation at the back of the throat. Barriers to engagement were peer norms, vaping restrictions in accommodation and adverse life events. Positive effects reported included increased energy, less coughing, better breathing and financial benefits. An improvement in the domain "poor concentration" was also found to be statistically significant (p = 0.040). CONCLUSION ENDS-based interventions may be effective with this population. Future research should aim to improve follow-up, consider including behavioural components and monitor health effects in relation to ongoing concerns around risks and the balance of harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION Registered retrospectively ISRCTN14767579.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florian Scheibein
- School of Health Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
| | - Kevin McGirr
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA
| | | | - Warren Roche
- Nutritional Research Centre Ireland, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Calabro KS, Khalil GE, Chen M, Perry CL, Prokhorov AV. Pilot study to inform young adults about the risks of electronic cigarettes through text messaging. Addict Behav Rep 2019; 10:100224. [PMID: 31828203 PMCID: PMC6889374 DOI: 10.1016/j.abrep.2019.100224] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2018] [Revised: 09/10/2019] [Accepted: 09/22/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Text messaging is a potentially powerful tool for informing the public about risks. After 16 texts, the perceived risk of using e-cigarettes was significantly increased. Tobacco risk communication via texts could help guide healthful choices.
Introduction Young adults are rapidly adopting electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use. The popularity of e-cigarettes among young people can be attributed to heavy industry advertising and misleading health claims. Data indicate that young e-cigarette users who have never used conventional cigarettes may transition toward smoking combustible cigarettes. Communicating e-cigarette risks via text messaging is limited. This pilot study assessed the impact of exposure to 16 text messages on e-cigarette knowledge and risk perception. The short text messages delivered to participants conveyed e-cigarette use may lead to addiction to nicotine and explained the latest health-related findings. Methods A two-group randomized pretest and posttest study was conducted among 95 racially, ethnically diverse young adults recruited from vocational training programs. Fifty percent of participants were randomized to receive either gain- or loss-framed messages. Knowledge and risk perceptions about e-cigarettes and tobacco use were assessed pre- and post-message exposure. Results Participants had a mean age of 20.8 years, SD = 1.7. Current use of e-cigarettes was reported by 10.5% (10/95) and 27.4% (26/95) used a variety of other tobacco products. Findings revealed significant increases in knowledge about e-cigarettes after exposure to the messages (range for ps: p < 04 to p < 0.0001). A statistically significant increase in perceived e-cigarette risk was found post-exposure (p = 0.002). Participants randomized to gain-framed messages reported a significantly higher perceived risk of using e-cigarettes post-exposure than did those who received loss-framed messages (p = 0.02). Conclusions This was a small-scale pilot requiring additional evidence to support the effectiveness of text messaging for increasing e-cigarette knowledge and risk perception. Future research may apply text messages to test new ways to educate young populations about tobacco use and consider addressing these messages to specific subgroups at high risk of use such as non-college bound young adults.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen S Calabro
- Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas (UT) MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Georges E Khalil
- Department of Behavioral Science, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Minxing Chen
- Department of Biostatistics, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Cheryl L Perry
- School of Public Health at Austin, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Austin, TX, United States
| | - Alexander V Prokhorov
- Department of Behavioral Science, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| |
Collapse
|