Quit and smoking reduction rates in vape shop consumers: a prospective 12-month survey

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.

The Compassion Club: A New Proposal for Transformation of Tobacco Retail

INTRODUCTION

One major assumption in the current tobacco industry is the distribution of tobacco products through a system of commercial for-profit retail. However, other models of distribution that do not rely on this mechanism exist.

AIMS AND METHODS

In this review, we examine the potential of a nonprofit Compassion Club model and discuss how the current existence of independent vape stores might provide the infrastructure to allow the transformation of tobacco distribution.

RESULTS

Compassion Clubs exist internationally with different levels of regulation and legality and have generally been focused on the distribution of illegal drugs or hard-to-access pharmaceuticals. They provide access to drugs for existing users, limit access by novices, limit negative impacts from illicit markets, and provide social support focused on reducing harms associated with drug use.

CONCLUSIONS

With decreasing prevalence of tobacco use in many countries and growing interest in a tobacco endgame, a Compassion Club model of distribution could help transition tobacco away from the model of commercial widely available distribution. More work is needed to develop the regulations and policies that might guide a compassion club model.

IMPLICATIONS

Compassion clubs are a model for the distribution of psychoactive substances that are focused on harm reduction and social support rather than profit. There has been little discussion about the possibility that this promising model could be applied to help transform the tobacco industry. Many independent vape stores already demonstrate aspects of the compassion club model that could be used to support a transition.

An exploration of flavours in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation: secondary analyses of a systematic review with meta-analyses

AIMS

To estimate associations between e-cigarette flavour and smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a living systematic review, with meta-analyses and narrative synthesis, incorporating data up to January 2022. Included studies provided people who smoked combustible cigarettes with nicotine e-cigarettes for the purpose of smoking cessation compared with no treatment or other stop smoking interventions. Measurements included smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); and flavour use at any time-points.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies (n = 10 336); 14 contributed to subgroup analyses and 10 provided participants with a choice of e-cigarette flavour. We judged nine, five and two studies at high, low and unclear risk of bias, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed no clear associations between flavour and cessation or product use. In all but one analysis, tests for subgroup differences resulted in I2 values between 0 and 35%. In the comparison between nicotine e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (I2  = 65.2% for subgroup differences), studies offering tobacco flavour e-cigarettes showed evidence of a greater proportion of participants still using at 6 months or longer (RR = 3.81; 95% CI = 1.45-10.05; n = 1181; I2  = 84%), whereas there was little evidence for greater 6-month use when studies offered a choice of flavours (RR = 1.44; 95% CI = 0.80-2.56; n = 454; I2  = 82%). However, substantial statistical heterogeneity within subgroups makes interpretation of this result unclear. In the 10 studies where participants had a choice of flavours, and this was tracked over time, some switching between flavours occurred, but there were no clear patterns in flavour preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not appear to be a clear association between e-cigarette flavours and smoking cessation or longer-term e-cigarette use, possibly due to a paucity of data. There is evidence that people using e-cigarettes to quit smoking switch between e-cigarette flavours.

Psychological Experience of Smoking Addiction in Family and Friends of Schizophrenic Adults Who Smoke Daily: A Qualitative Study

The smoking addiction of patients with severe mental disorders has consequences not only for the patients but also for the people around them. This is qualitative research on family and friends of patients with Schizophrenia spectrum disorders to investigate their perception and vision of smoking, its impact on the patients' physical and mental health, and the possible attempts to combat addiction. The research also investigates the participants' views on electronic cigarettes as a means of replacing traditional cigarettes and helping the patient to quit smoking. The survey method used was a semi-structured interview. The answers were recorded, transcribed and analyzed with the technique of thematic analysis. The results of this study show that the view of most participants on smoking is negative (83.3%), although not all of them consider smoking cessation treatments for these patients of primary importance (33.3%). Nevertheless, a good number of them have tried to intervene spontaneously with their own resources and strategies (66.6%). Finally, low-risk products, and in particular electronic cigarettes, are considered by many participants as a useful alternative to traditional cigarettes in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. About the meaning that cigarettes can assume for the patient, recurring themes emerge: they are considered as a way to manage nervousness and tension or as a means to contrast daily monotony and boredom or repeat usual gestures and habits.

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.

Health impact of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current and emerging evidence

INTRODUCTION

Quitting is the only proven method to attenuate the progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, most COPD smokers do not seem to respond to smoking cessation interventions and may benefit by lessening the negative health effects of long-term cigarette smoke exposure by switching to non-combustible nicotine delivery alternatives, such as heated tobacco products (HTPs) and e-cigarettes (ECs).

AREAS COVERED

Compared with conventional cigarettes, HTPs and ECs offer substantial reduction in exposure to toxic chemicals and have the potential to reduce harm from cigarette smoke when used as tobacco cigarette substitutes. In this review, we examine the available clinical studies and population surveys on the respiratory health effects of ECs and HTPs in COPD patients.

EXPERT OPINION

The current research on the impact of ECs and HTPs on COPD patients' health is limited, and more high-quality studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions. However, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the available literature for health professionals looking to advise COPD patients on the use of these products. While ECs and HTPs may offer some benefits in reducing harm from cigarette smoke, their long-term effects on COPD patients' health are still unclear.

The Impact of Recent Tobacco Regulations and COVID-19 Restrictions and Implications for Future E-Cigarette Retail: Perspectives from Vape and Vape-and-Smoke Shop Merchants

BACKGROUND

Tobacco regulations and COVID-19 state orders have substantially impacted vape retail. This study assessed vape retailers' perspectives regarding regulations and future retail activities.

METHODS

In March-June 2021, 60 owners or managers of vape or vape-and-smoke shops (n = 34 vs. n = 26) in six US metropolitan areas completed an online survey assessing: (1) current and future promotional strategies and product offerings; and (2) experiences with federal minimum legal sales age (T21) policies, the federal flavored e-cigarette ban, and COVID-19-related orders. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively; qualitative responses to open-ended questions were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Most participants had websites (65.0%), used social media for promotion (71.7%), offered curbside pickup (51.7%), and sold CBD (e.g., 73.3% vape products, 80.0% other); many also sold other tobacco products. Knowledge varied regarding state/local policies in effect before federal policies. Participants perceived tobacco regulations and COVID-19 orders as somewhat easy to understand/implement and perceived noncompliance consequences as somewhat severe. Qualitative themes indicated concerns regarding regulations' negative impacts (e.g., sales/customer loss, customers switching to combustibles), insufficient evidence base, challenges explaining regulations to customers, and concerns about future regulatory actions.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance of tobacco retail, consumer behavior, and regulatory compliance is warranted as policies regarding nicotine and cannabis continue evolving.

Preferences for different features of ENDS products by tobacco product use: a latent class analysis

BACKGROUND

From a public health perspective, electronic nicotine delivery devices (ENDS) use may be beneficial for some populations (e.g., smokers who fully switch to ENDS) but detrimental for others (e.g., nonsmokers). Understanding the importance placed on different ENDS product features by user groups can guide interventions and regulations.

METHODS

Participants were US adults who had used ENDS at least once and from a convenience sample drawn from a market research software in 2016. Participants chose between 9 different ENDS product features (harms of use, general effects of use, use as a cessation aid, initial purchase price, monthly cost, nicotine content, flavor availability, device design, and modifiability). A latent class analysis (LCA) identified subgroups of feature preferences and examined differences between groups by socio-demographics and tobacco product use.

RESULTS

Of the 636 participants, 81% were White, the median age was 42, and 65% were current cigarette smokers. The LCA identified a 4-class solution as the most appropriate model: (1) people with high nicotine dependence who preferred ENDS similar to combustible cigarettes, (2) people with moderate tobacco use who were interested in low nicotine ENDS (3) people who use ENDS and combustible tobacco who preferred lower price and flavored ENDS products, and (4) people who used ENDS predominantly, without a strong preference for any of the features presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco use classes were associated with differences in preferences for ENDS features. These findings can inform regulations to reduce ENDS use among specific groups of people who use ENDS products.

Counseling in Vape Shops: A Survey of Vape Shop Managers in Switzerland

Vaporizers (e-cigarettes) are the most common smoking cessation aids in Switzerland, but we do not know what information customers receive in vape shops. We surveyed vape-shop managers to find out what recommendations they make to their customers. An interdisciplinary group developed the questionnaire. Respondents self-reported their smoking history, demographics, and the recommendations they thought they would give to hypothetical customers in clinical vignettes. We also queried if they collaborated with health care professionals. Of those contacted, 53.8% (70/130) of vape-shop managers responded, and 52.3% (68/130) were included in the final analysis. Managers were mostly male and ex-smokers who switched to vaporizers; 60.3% would encourage a hypothetical smoker with high nicotine dependence to start with the highest possible nicotine concentration when switching to vaporizers. For this smoker, 36.9% would recommend high (≥15 mg/mL), 32.3% medium (6–14 mg/mL), and 3.1% low (1–5 mg/mL) nicotine concentrations. The rest adapted their recommendations to fit the customer or device; 76.5% reported that physicians referred customers to them, and 78.8% would attend a course given by experts in the field of vaporizers and smoking cessation. Vape-shop managers varied widely in the recommendations they gave customers. Most reported ongoing collaboration with health care professionals and were interested in improving their counselling skills through training.

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.

A Mixed Methods Pilot Study on the Short-Term Physiological Effects of Vaping and Attitudes Regarding Its Use and Health Effects in Samples of Young Adults

Vaping is a fairly new and legal way young people are inhaling substances into their lungs. Very little is currently known about the immediate physiological impact or the psychosocial reasons surrounding vape use. This study used a mixed methods approach to (a) understand the short-term physiological implications of vape use compared with people who do not vape and (b) investigate the reasons people choose to vape compared with those who choose not to vape. Twenty-four people participated in the study: 12 self-identified as nonvapers, and 12 self-identified as people who vape. All participants were between 18 and 24 years old. Qualitative analysis suggested people vape because they think it is cool, think it is less risky than smoking, and enjoy the social aspects of vaping. People who choose not to vape are concerned about the unknown health implications, think it is a waste of resources, and are apathetic toward it. Quantitative results revealed statistically significant increases in heart rate and decreases in the percentage of blood oxygenation after 20 minutes of vape use. Blood pressure, respiratory rate, and blood sugar scores did not significantly change after 20 minutes of vape use. Differences in the frequencies of men and women across the two groups were found. Significant differences found for systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and pulmonary function test became nonsignificant after controlling for gender. Both long- and short-term effects of vaping need to be further evaluated. The psychosocial reasons why certain people vape whereas others in the same peer group do not also need to be better understood.

A modeling approach to gauging the effects of nicotine vaping product use on cessation from cigarettes: what do we know, what do we need to know?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The long-term population health impact of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) use among smokers is unknown, and subject to a range of plausible assumptions about the use and health consequences of NVPs. While NVPs use may substitute for cigarette smoking and thereby aid in quitting cigarette use, it is also possible that smokers who would have otherwise quit would instead delay quitting cigarettes. We aimed to develop a cohort-specific simulation model of the impact of NVPs on smoking cessation by adult smokers and resulting premature deaths (PD) and life years lost (LYL).

DESIGN

A cohort-specific simulation model of the impact of NVPs on smoking cessation by adult smokers and resulting premature deaths (PD) and life years lost (LYL) was developed by gender for two birth cohorts, aged 30 and 50 years in 2012. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers in two birth cohorts, aged 30 and 50 years in 2012.

MEASUREMENTS

Data were from the 1965-2012 National Health Interview Surveys and the 2014/15 Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey. The model incorporated a range of plausible assumptions from published literature about transition rates from regular smoking to exclusive NVP and dual use, from dual use to exclusive NVP use and from exclusive NVP use to no use.

FINDINGS

Compared with the no-NVP scenario, the male (female) model projected 17.8% (19.3%) fewer PDs and 22.9% (26.6%) fewer LYL for the 1982 cohort and 5.4% (7.3%) fewer PDs and 7.9% (11.4%) fewer LYL for the 1962 cohort. These gains were sensitive to NVP use over time, age of initial NVP use, transitions from smoking to dual, exclusive NVP and no use and relative NVP mortality risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Nicotine vaping product (NVP) use in the United States is projected to have a net positive impact on population health over a wide range of plausible levels of NVP use, transitions to dual, exclusive NVP and no use and NVP risks. However, net impact is sensitive to parameter estimates.

Advice From Former-Smoking E-Cigarette Users to Current Smokers on How to Use E-Cigarettes as Part of an Attempt to Quit Smoking

Introduction

Substitution of e-cigarettes for tobacco smoking has the potential to prevent almost all the harm caused by smoking. Identifying strategies that may increase smokers' capability, opportunity and motivation to use e-cigarettes in place of tobacco cigarettes is vital. Former smokers who have successfully used e-cigarettes to quit smoking may be especially well qualified to increase current smokers' interest in switching and ability to switch to e-cigarettes.

Methods

A multi-national, self-selected sample of 4192 former smokers who quit smoking by using e-cigarettes were asked, via an online survey, the advice they would offer to smokers who are considering using e-cigarettes to support an attempt to quit smoking.

Results

Thematic analysis of participants' qualitative responses identified four emergent themes: (1) Find a combination of vaping device, flavors of e-liquid and nicotine strength that "works for you"; (2) Continuing to smoke for a while after starting to vape is OK; (3) Failure to quit smoking with the use of approved smoking cessation aids before success with e-cigarettes is common; and (4) Awareness of improved health and hygiene since switching to vaping.

Conclusions

Experienced vapers who used to smoke appear eager to give smokers advice and practical information about vaping that may assist attempts to switch from smoking to vaping. Encouraging cigarette smokers to interact with experienced vapers in places where vapers themselves once received advice and now give advice about vaping-vape shops and online discussion fora-may have significant potential to help more smokers to switch to e-cigarette use.

Implications

This study describes the advice that former-smokers who used e-cigarettes to quit smoking would offer to smokers who are considering using an e-cigarette to support an attempt to quit smoking. Vapers advised smokers to find the right combination of device, flavors and nicotine strength, continue to smoke and vape for a while if they wished, not be deterred by past failed attempts to quit smoking, and expect health to improve after they have switched to vaping. Encouraging smokers to interact with vaping peers in vape shops and in online vaping-dedicated discussion fora may help significantly more smokers switch to vaping.

Patterns of e-cigarette use, biochemically verified smoking status and self-reported changes in health status of a random sample of vapeshops customers in Greece

To understand the population impact of e-cigarettes, it is important to examine the profile of e-cigarette users. The purpose was to examine the characteristics, patterns of e-cigarette use and smoking status of a random sample of vapeshops customers in Greece. Fourteen vapeshops were randomly selected in the region of Athens. Every third customer buying products for personal use was recruited by a researcher visiting the vapeshops. Current smoking status was assessed by measuring exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO), with a value ≥ 7 ppm being used to classify subjects as current smokers. A questionnaire was used to examine past smoking status, patterns of e-cigarette use, changes in health status and experienced side effects. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify correlates of being a former smoker. A total of 309 participants were analyzed, with 82.5% being daily e-cigarette users. The vast majority (98%) were smokers before e-cigarette use initiation, with 69.6% of them having eCO < 7 ppm (former smokers). Only 1% were never smokers, and 1% had quit smoking before e-cigarette use initiation; all of them had eCO < 7 ppm. Most participants were using third-generation devices (61.8%) and were using non-tobacco flavors (58.9%). The average liquid consumption was 5 mL/day. Most participants experienced health benefits, mainly improvement in physical status, exercise capacity, olfactory and gustatory senses, while the most common side effects were throat irritation and cough. The strongest correlate of being a former smoker was daily e-cigarette use. Vapeshops customers in Greece are mainly current and former smokers with the majority of them having quit smoking. E-cigarette use by never smokers is rare and none of them subsequently initiate smoking.

Nicotine absorption from e-cigarettes over 12 months

BACKGROUND

Research indicates that, over time, exclusive e-cigarette users (vapers) gradually reduce the nicotine concentration in their e-liquid and transition to more sophisticated devices. Alongside this, consumption of e-liquid increases and constant cotinine levels are maintained.

AIMS

We aimed to confirm these observations in 27 experienced vapers tested at baseline and 12 months later, by measuring nicotine absorption (via salivary levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine; ng/mL), nicotine concentrations in e-liquid (mg/mL), volume of e-liquid consumed (mL per day), device types and flavours used, both at baseline and 12 months.

RESULTS

Vapers reduced both their nicotine concentrations in e-liquid over 12 months (from 13.83 mg/mL at baseline to 9.91 at follow up) but significantly increased their e-liquid consumption (from 4.44 to 6.84 mL). No significant changes in salivary cotinine concentrations (370.88 ng/mL at baseline and 415.78 ng/mL at follow up) were observed. There was an increase in sub-ohming (using an atomiser coil with resistance of <1 Ω with increased power) at 12 months, and in the use of fruit flavoured e-liquids.

CONCLUSIONS

Our sample of experienced vapers reduced the concentration of nicotine in their e-liquid over time, but maintained their nicotine intake possibly through self-titration via more intensive puffing. Findings suggest there may be little benefit in reducing nicotine e-liquid concentration since this appears to result in higher e-liquid consumption which may incur both a financial and health cost. Gaining an understanding of underlying reasons for lowering e-liquid concentration would be a useful line of empirical enquiry.

A Comparison of E-Cigarette Use Patterns and Smoking Cessation Behavior among Vapers by Primary Place of Purchase

Background: E-cigarettes are purchased through multiple channels, including general retail, online, and specialty smoke and vape shops. We examine how e-cigarette users’ primary purchase place relates to e-cigarette use and smoking cessation behaviors. Methods: Probability-based samples of the U.S. population who were current e-cigarette users were surveyed in 2014 (N = 879) and 2016 (N = 743), with responses combined for most analyses. E-cigarette use and smoking cessation behaviors were compared across users’ primary purchase place. Results: Higher percentages of vape shop (59.1%) and internet (42.9%) customers were current daily users of e-cigarettes compared to retail (19.7%) and smoke shop (23.2%) customers (p-values < 0.001). Higher percentages of vape shop (40.2%) and internet (35.1%) customers were also former smokers, compared to 17.7% of retail and 19.3% of smoke shop customers (p’s < 0.001). Among those smoking 12 months prior to survey, smoking cessation rates were higher for vape shop (22.2%) and internet customers (22.5%) than for retail customers (10.7%, p = 0.010 and p = 0.022, respectively), even though retail customers were more likely to use FDA-approved smoking cessation aids. The percentage of customers purchasing from vape shops increased from 20.4% in 2014 to 37.6% in 2016, surpassing general retail (27.7%) as the most likely channel in 2016. Conclusions: E-cigarette customers differed in significant ways by channels of purchase, most notably in their smoking cessation behaviors. Previous population studies have relied mostly on retail channel data, which accounted for less than 30% of all products sold by 2016. Future studies of e-cigarette use should consider a broader set of channels.

Differences between the effects of conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes and dual product use on urine cotinine levels

INTRODUCTION

METHODS

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers and facilitators to switching from smoking to vaping: Advice from vapers

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Information available to consumers about nicotine vaping products varies according to the regulatory environment. A common information source in Australia, where nicotine vaping products are highly regulated, is advice from vapers. The aim of this study was to report on what advice current vapers would give to someone new to vaping.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Australian vapers were recruited in 2016 via the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Smoking and Vaping survey of smokers and ex-smokers, as well as a separate recruitment process that targeted vapers. A total of 384 of 559 eligible participants responded to an open-ended question about barriers to switching from smoking to vaping, and what advice they would give to new vapers.

RESULTS

While some participants reported switching from smoking to vaping easily, others described an adjustment period. Difficulties included learning about technical aspects of nicotine vaping products, finding the 'right' combination of device and liquid, and accessing nicotine liquid given that it cannot legally be sold. Many accounts of satisfaction with quitting smoking and improved health were provided.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Advice from current vapers is likely to be particularly influential in Australia, where information about vaping is not easily available from health organisations or official government sources. This research shows that advice to new vaper centres around experimentation with devices and flavours and finding trustworthy suppliers of nicotine liquid. It provides an insight into the initial challenges associated with switching from smoking to nicotine vaping products in environments where access to nicotine liquid is highly restricted.

Electronic cigarettes: a task force report from the European Respiratory Society

There is a marked increase in the development and use of electronic nicotine delivery systems or electronic cigarettes (ECIGs). This statement covers electronic cigarettes (ECIGs), defined as "electrical devices that generate an aerosol from a liquid" and thus excludes devices that contain tobacco. Database searches identified published articles that were used to summarise the current knowledge on the epidemiology of ECIG use; their ingredients and accompanied health effects; second-hand exposure; use of ECIGs for smoking cessation; behavioural aspects of ECIGs and social impact; in vitro and animal studies; and user perspectives.ECIG aerosol contains potentially toxic chemicals. As compared to conventional cigarettes, these are fewer and generally in lower concentrations. Second-hand exposures to ECIG chemicals may represent a potential risk, especially to vulnerable populations. There is not enough scientific evidence to support ECIGs as an aid to smoking cessation due to a lack of controlled trials, including those that compare ECIGs with licenced stop-smoking treatments. So far, there are conflicting data that use of ECIGs results in a renormalisation of smoking behaviour or for the gateway hypothesis. Experiments in cell cultures and animal studies show that ECIGs can have multiple negative effects. The long-term effects of ECIG use are unknown, and there is therefore no evidence that ECIGs are safer than tobacco in the long term. Based on current knowledge, negative health effects cannot be ruled out.

Where Do Vapers Buy Their Vaping Supplies? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) 4 Country Smoking and Vaping Survey

Aim: This study examines where vapers purchase their vaping refills in countries having different regulations over such devices, Canada (CA), the United States (US), England (EN), and Australia (AU). Methods: Data were available from 1899 current adult daily and weekly vapers who participated in the 2016 (Wave 1) International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping. The outcome was purchase location of vaping supplies (online, vape shop, other). Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported for between country comparisons. Results: Overall, 41.4% of current vapers bought their vaping products from vape shops, 27.5% bought them online, and 31.1% from other retail locations. The vast majority of vapers (91.1%) reported using nicotine-containing e-liquids. In AU, vapers were more likely to buy online vs other locations compared to CA (OR = 6.4, 2.3⁻17.9), the US (OR = 4.1, 1.54⁻10.7), and EN (OR = 7.9, 2.9⁻21.8). In the US, they were more likely to buy from vape shops (OR = 3.3, 1.8⁻6.2) or online (OR = 1.9, 1.0⁻3.8) vs other retail locations when compared to those in EN. In CA, vapers were more likely to purchase at vape shops than at other retail locations when compared to vapers in EN (5.9, 3.2⁻10.9) and the US (1.87, 1.0⁻3.1). Conclusions: The regulatory environment and enforcement of such regulations appear to influence the location where vapers buy their vaping products. In AU, banning the retail sale of nicotine vaping products has led vapers to rely mainly on online purchasing sources, whereas the lack of enforcement of the same regulation in CA has allowed specialty vape shops to flourish.

About One in Five Novice Vapers Buying Their First E-Cigarette in a Vape Shop Are Smoking Abstinent after Six Months

Background: E-cigarette use is rising with the majority of vapers purchasing their e-cigarettes in vape shops. We investigated the smoking/vaping trajectories and quit-smoking success rates of smokers deciding to start vaping for the first time and buying their e-cigarette in brick-and-mortar vape shops in Flanders. Methods: Participants filled out questionnaires assessing smoking/vaping behaviour at three moments (intake, after three and six months) and smoking status was biochemically verified using eCO measurements. Results: Participants (n = 71) were regular smokers (M_eCO-intake = 22 ppm), half of whom reported a motivation to quit smoking in the near future. Participants bought 3rd/4th generation e-cigarettes and e-liquid with a nicotine concentration averaging 7 mg/mL. A smoking reduction of 53% (17 cigarettes per day (CPD) at intake to 8 CPD after six months) was observed, whereas eCO decreased to 15 ppm. Eighteen percent of participants had quit smoking completely (eCO = 2 ppm), another 25% had at least halved CPD, whereas 57% had failed to reduce CPD by at least 50% (including 13% lost to follow-up). Quitters consumed more e-liquid than reducers and those who continued to smoke. Conclusions: Around one in five smoking customers buying their first e-cigarette in a brick-and-mortar vape shop had quit smoking completely after six months.

Vape shops: who uses them and what do they do?

BACKGROUND

'Vape shops' are a popular source for buying electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and related products. The products that vape shops sell, their marketing techniques and the extent to which they provide information or encouragement to smokers to quit tobacco use, as well as the patterns of tobacco and e-cigarette use of their customers are not well understood.

METHODS

We conducted cross-sectional surveys in vape shops in the East Midlands region of the United Kingdom, one with shop staff (n = 41), and one with customers (n = 197).

RESULTS

The majority of customers (84%) currently used e-cigarettes. Among current vapers, 19% were dual users and 78% had quit smoking. Over half of vapers reported using a lower level of nicotine in their current e-liquid than when they started using e-cigarettes. There was a wide variety in products and price ranges between the shops. Many staff reported that customers ask for information about quitting smoking (90%). Less than half reported providing smoking cessation advice, although 76% of staff reported feeling confident about delivering cessation advice to customers who ask for it. Just under half of customers and shop staff said they thought it was appropriate to deliver formal in-store smoking cessation support.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of vape shop customers are vapers who have quit smoking. Shop staff play a central role in providing customers with product information, and many provide smoking cessation advice. Further research is needed to investigate the potential for smoking cessation interventions in vape shops, including the extent to which these would appeal to non-vapers.

A systematic review of consumer preference for e-cigarette attributes: Flavor, nicotine strength, and type

Objective

Systematic review of research examining consumer preference for the main electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) attributes namely flavor, nicotine strength, and type.

Method

A systematic search of peer-reviewed articles resulted in a pool of 12,933 articles. We included only articles that meet all the selection criteria: (1) peer-reviewed, (2) written in English, and (3) addressed consumer preference for one or more of the e-cigarette attributes including flavor, strength, and type.

Results

66 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Consumers preferred flavored e-cigarettes, and such preference varied with age groups and smoking status. We also found that several flavors were associated with decreased harm perception while tobacco flavor was associated with increased harm perception. In addition, some flavor chemicals and sweeteners used in e-cigarettes could be of toxicological concern. Finally, consumer preference for nicotine strength and types depended on smoking status, e-cigarette use history, and gender.

Conclusion

Adolescents could consider flavor the most important factor trying e-cigarettes and were more likely to initiate vaping through flavored e-cigarettes. Young adults overall preferred sweet, menthol, and cherry flavors, while non-smokers in particular preferred coffee and menthol flavors. Adults in general also preferred sweet flavors (though smokers like tobacco flavor the most) and disliked flavors that elicit bitterness or harshness. In terms of whether flavored e-cigarettes assisted quitting smoking, we found inconclusive evidence. E-cigarette users likely initiated use with a cigarette like product and transitioned to an advanced system with more features. Non-smokers and inexperienced e-cigarettes users tended to prefer no nicotine or low nicotine e-cigarettes while smokers and experienced e-cigarettes users preferred medium and high nicotine e-cigarettes. Weak evidence exists regarding a positive interaction between menthol flavor and nicotine strength.

How do we determine the impact of e-cigarettes on cigarette smoking cessation or reduction? Review and recommendations for answering the research question with scientific rigor

AIMS

To propose a hierarchy of methodological criteria to consider when determining whether a study provides sufficient information to answer the question of whether e-cigarettes can facilitate cigarette smoking cessation or reduction.

DESIGN

A PubMed search to 1 February 2017 was conducted of all studies related to e-cigarettes and smoking cessation or reduction.

SETTINGS

Australia, Europe, Iran, Korea, New Zealand and the United States.

PARTICIPANTS AND STUDIES

91 articles.

MEASUREMENTS

Coders organized studies according to six proposed methodological criteria: (1) examines outcome of interest (cigarette abstinence or reduction), (2) assesses e-cigarette use for cessation as exposure of interest, (3) employs appropriate control/comparison groups, (4) ensures that measurement of exposure precedes the outcome, (5) evaluates dose and duration of the exposure and (6) evaluates the type and quality of the e-cigarette used.

FINDINGS

Twenty-four papers did not examine the outcomes of interest. Forty did not assess the specific reason for e-cigarette use as an exposure of interest. Twenty papers did not employ prospective study designs with appropriate comparison groups. The few observational studies meeting some of the criteria (duration, type, use for cessation) triangulated with findings from three randomized trials to suggest that e-cigarettes can help adult smokers quit or reduce cigarette smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a small proportion of studies seeking to address the effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation or reduction meet a set of proposed quality standards. Those that do are consistent with randomized controlled trial evidence in suggesting that e-cigarettes can help with smoking cessation or reduction.

A Qualitative Exploration of the Role of Vape Shop Environments in Supporting Smoking Abstinence

E-cigarettes are the most popular method of quitting smoking in England and most are purchased in specialist vape shops. This qualitative study explores how the vape shop environment is experienced by quitters to support smoking abstinence. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to elicit experiences of e-cigarette use, including experiences of vape shops, in 40 people who had used e-cigarettes in a quit attempt. Observations of six shops in a range of locations were also undertaken. Interview and observation data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis and triangulated. At an individual level, smoking abstinence was supported through shop assistants' attempts to understand customers' smoking preferences in order to: (i) tailor advice about the most appropriate product; and (ii) offer an ongoing point of contact for practical help. At an interpersonal level, shops offered opportunity to socialise and reinforce a vaping identity, although the environment was perceived as intimidating for some (e.g., new and female users). At a structural level, shops ensured easy access to products perceived to be good value by customers and had adapted to legislative changes. Vape shops can provide effective behavioural support to quitters to maintain smoking abstinence. Health professionals could capitalise on this through partnership working with shops, to ensure best outcomes for clients wanting to use e-cigarettes to quit smoking.

Comparison of Bladder Carcinogens in the Urine of E-cigarette Users Versus Non E-cigarette Using Controls

Electronic cigarette (EC) use is gaining popularity as a substitute for conventional smoking due to the perception and evidence it represents a safer alternative. In contrast to the common perception amongst users that ECs represent no risk initial studies have revealed a complex composition of e-cigarette liquids. Conventional cigarette smoking is a known risk factor for developing bladder cancer and prior reports raise concern some of those causative compounds may exist in EC liquids or vapor. Urine samples were collected from 13 e-cigarette using subjects and 10 non e-cigarette using controls. Five known bladder carcinogens that are either present in conventional cigarettes, products of combustion, or solvents believed to be used in some e-cigarette formulations were quantified by liquid chromatography – mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Analysis of e-cigarette user urine revealed the presence of two carcinogenic compounds, o-toluidine and 2-naphthylamine, at a mean 2.3 and 1.3 fold higher concentration (p-value of 0.0013 and 0.014 respectively). Many of these subjects (9/13) were long term nonsmokers (>12 months). Further study is needed to clarify the safety profile of e-cigarettes and their contribution to the development of bladder cancer given the greater concentration of carcinogenic aromatic amines in the urine of e-cigarette users.

Then and now: Consumption and dependence in e-cigarette users who formerly smoked cigarettes

Electronic cigarette use, or vaping, continues to be a focus for regulators and policy makers in public health, particularly since it can compete with or be a substitute for smoking. This study investigated characteristics of nicotine dependence and consumption in a sample of vapers who formerly smoked cigarettes. We recruited 436 (80% male) vapers from several internet discussion forums; 95% of whom previously smoked, but ceased after commencing vaping. These participants completed a retrospective version of the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND-R), as well as a version modified to suit current vaping (FTND-V), along with measures of consumption. Nicotine dependence appears to reduce markedly when smokers transition to vaping. However, 'decoupling' is observed in the relationship between consumption and dependence in vaping, and the FTND-V showed inadequate psychometric properties. Older and female vapers tend to employ a low-power, higher nicotine-concentration style of vaping. Overall, nicotine concentration tended to increase over time, although this effect was moderated by users' intentions to reduce their intake. Indicators of smoking addiction do not appear to be applicable to vaping, with respect to both internal consistency and relationship to consumption. This suggests that motivations for vaping are less dominated by nicotine delivery (negative reinforcement), and may be driven more by positive reinforcement factors. Nevertheless, e-liquid nicotine concentration was associated, albeit weakly, with dependence among e-cigarette users. Finally, vapers are heterogeneous group with respect to style of consumption, with a high-power/lower nicotine set-up more common among younger men.

Health impact of E-cigarettes: a prospective 3.5-year study of regular daily users who have never smoked

Although electronic cigarettes (ECs) are a much less harmful alternative to tobacco cigarettes, there is concern as to whether long-term ECs use may cause risks to human health. We report health outcomes (blood pressure, heart rate, body weight, lung function, respiratory symptoms, exhaled breath nitric oxide [eNO], exhaled carbon monoxide [eCO], and high-resolution computed tomography [HRCT] of the lungs) from a prospective 3.5-year observational study of a cohort of nine daily EC users (mean age 29.7 (±6.1) years) who have never smoked and a reference group of twelve never smokers. No significant changes could be detected over the observation period from baseline in the EC users or between EC users and control subjects in any of the health outcomes investigated. Moreover, no pathological findings could be identified on HRCT of the lungs and no respiratory symptoms were consistently reported in the EC user group. Although it cannot be excluded that some harm may occur at later stages, this study did not demonstrate any health concerns associated with long-term use of EC in relatively young users who did not also smoke tobacco.

Could Vaping be a New Weapon in the Battle of the Bulge?

IMPLICATIONS

Obesity is set to overtake tobacco smoking in many countries as the primary cause of several high-cost diseases. Tobacco smoking mitigates weight gain through nicotine's effect on the brain and metabolism. Smoking, however, is associated with many illnesses and premature death and appropriately has been discouraged leading to declining prevalence rates. This article explores the emerging perception that vaping electronic cigarettes with nicotine and flavors could deliver similar appetite and weight control effects as smoking. The potential to reduce risks associated with excess weight deserves exploration. An initial research agenda is suggested.

E-cigarettes in patients with COPD: current perspectives

Conventional cigarette smoking is known to result in significant COPD morbidity and mortality. Strategies to reduce and/or stop smoking in this highly vulnerable patient group are key public health priorities to reduce COPD morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, smoking cessation efforts in patients with COPD are poor and there is a compelling need for more efficient approaches to cessation for patients with COPD. Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are devices that use batteries to vaporize nicotine. They may facilitate quit attempts and cessation in many smokers. Although they are not risk free, ECs are much less harmful than tobacco smoking. Hence, the use of ECs in vulnerable groups and in patients with challenges to abstain or multiple relapses to this habit may be promising. To date, little is known about health consequences of EC use among COPD smokers and whether their regular use has any effects on subjective and objective COPD outcomes. In the current review, we discuss the current perspectives and literature on the role of ECs in abstaining from conventional smoking and the effects of ECs on the respiratory tract in patients with COPD.

A critique of the US Surgeon General's conclusions regarding e-cigarette use among youth and young adults in the United States of America

BACKGROUND

In December 2016, the Surgeon General published a report that concluded e-cigarette use among youth and young adults is becoming a major public health concern in the United States of America.

METHODS

Re-analysis of key data sources on nicotine toxicity and prevalence of youth use of e-cigarettes cited in the Surgeon General report as the basis for its conclusions.

RESULTS

Multiple years of nationally representative surveys indicate the majority of e-cigarette use among US youth is either infrequent or experimental, and negligible among never-smoking youth. The majority of the very small proportion of US youth who use e-cigarettes on a regular basis, consume nicotine-free products. The sharpest declines in US youth smoking rates have occurred as e-cigarettes have become increasingly available. Most of the evidence presented in the Surgeon General's discussion of nicotine harm is not applicable to e-cigarette use, because it relies almost exclusively on exposure to nicotine in the cigarette smoke and not to nicotine present in e-cigarette aerosol emissions. Moreover, the referenced literature describes effects in adults, not youth, and in animal models that have little relevance to real-world e-cigarette use by youth. The Surgeon General's report is an excellent reference document for the adverse outcomes due to nicotine in combination with several other toxicants present in tobacco smoke, but fails to address the risks of nicotine decoupled from tobacco smoke constituents. The report exaggerates the toxicity of propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG) by focusing on experimental conditions that do not reflect use in the real-world and provides little discussion of emerging evidence that e-cigarettes may significantly reduce harm to smokers who have completely switched.

CONCLUSIONS

The U.S. Surgeon General's claim that e-cigarette use among U.S. youth and young adults is an emerging public health concern does not appear to be supported by the best available evidence on the health risks of nicotine use and population survey data on prevalence of frequent e-cigarette use. Nonetheless, patterns of e-cigarettes use in youth must be constantly monitored for early detection of significant changes. The next US Surgeon General should consider the possibility that future generations of young Americans will be less likely to start smoking tobacco because of, not in spite of, the availability of e-cigarettes.

Vape shop retailers' perceptions of their customers, products and services: A content analysis

INTRODUCTION

The popularity of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has spurred the growth of vape shops, but little is known about the retailers who may play an important role in the introduction and dissemination of vape products. In this paper we examine how retailers profile their customers and their perceptions of vaping, and the services their shops provide.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of retailers (n=77) located across southern California. Open-ended questions were coded and analyzed using a content analysis approach.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged from the content analysis: who vapes, why people vape, and the vape shop environment. Retailers profiled customers as friendly, health conscious, and interested in tobacco cessation or cessation maintenance. Retailers believed e-cigarettes were used recreationally or as products that help curb other addictive behaviors. While most retailers reported positive experiences with vaping, some reported potentially negative experiences including failed cessation attempts, dual use of e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes, and increased nicotine dependence. Retailers reported that they regularly answer questions about vaping and believe their shops function as social lounges that are tied to other recreational activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Retailers attach certain characteristics to their clientele, perceive certain health benefits associated with vaping, and seek to establish their shops as places that provide guidance on vape products as well as shops with a recreational aesthetic. As vape shops grow in popularity, additional research on, and regulation of, these retailers will be necessary. Education campaigns are needed to inform retailers of the benefits and consequences of vaping.

Electronic cigarettes: what are they and what do they do?

Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) use electricity to power a heating element that aerosolizes a liquid containing solvents, flavorants, and the dependence-producing drug nicotine for user inhalation. ECIGs have evolved rapidly in the past 8 years, and the changes in product design and liquid constituents affect the resulting toxicant yield in the aerosol and delivery to the user. This rapid evolution has been accompanied by dramatic increases in ECIG use prevalence in many countries among adults and, especially, adolescents in the United States. The increased prevalence of ECIGs that deliver nicotine and other toxicants to users' lungs drives a rapidly growing research effort. This review highlights the most recent information regarding the design of ECIGs and their liquid and aerosol constituents, the epidemiology of ECIG use among adolescents and adults (including correlates of ECIG use), and preclinical and clinical research regarding ECIG effects. The current literature suggests a strong rationale for an empirical regulatory approach toward ECIGs that balances any potential ECIG-mediated decreases in health risks for smokers who use them as substitutes for tobacco cigarettes against any increased risks for nonsmokers who may be attracted to them.

A Risk Assessment Matrix for Public Health Principles: The Case for E-Cigarettes

Besides nicotine replacement therapies, a realistic alternative for smoking cessation or for smoking substitution may come from electronic cigarettes (ECs), whose popularity has been steadily growing. As for any emerging behaviour associated with exposure to inhalational agents, there is legitimate cause for concern and many health organizations and policy makers have pushed for restrictive policy measures ranging from complete bans to tight regulations of these products. Nonetheless, it is important to reframe these concerns in context of the well-known harm caused by cigarette smoking. In this article, we discuss key public health principles that should be considered when regulating ECs. These include the concept of tobacco harm reduction, importance of relative risk and risk continuum, renormalization of smoking, availability of low-risk product, proportionate taxation, and reassessment of the role of non-tobacco flavours. These public health principles may be systematically scrutinized using a risk assessment matrix that allows: (1) to determine the measure of certainty that a risk will occur; and (2) to estimate the impact of such a risk on public health. Consequently, the ultimate goal of responsible ECs regulation should be that of maximizing the favourable impact of these reduced-risk products whilst minimizing further any potential risks. Consumer perspectives, sound EC research, continuous post-marketing surveillance and reasonable safety and quality product standards should be at the very heart of future regulatory schemes that will address concerns while minimizing unintended consequences of ill-informed regulation.

Cross-sectional study examining the prevalence, correlates and sequencing of electronic cigarette and tobacco use among 11-16-year olds in schools in Wales

OBJECTIVES

To examine the prevalence and frequency of electronic (e)-cigarette use among young people in Wales, associations with socio-demographic characteristics, smoking and other substances and the sequencing of e-cigarette and tobacco use.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey of school students in Wales undertaken in 2015.

SETTING

87 secondary schools in Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Students aged 11-16 (n=32 479).

RESULTS

Overall, students were nearly twice as likely to report ever using e-cigarettes (18.5%) as smoking tobacco (10.5%). Use of e-cigarettes at least weekly was 2.7% in the whole sample, rising to 5.7% among those aged 15-16. Almost half (41.8%) of daily smokers reported being regular e-cigarette users. Regular e-cigarette use was more prevalent among current cannabis users (relative risk ratio (RRR)=41.82; 95% CI 33.48 to 52.25)), binge drinkers (RRR=47.88; 95% CI 35.77 to 64.11), users of mephedrone (RRR=32.38; 95% CI 23.05 to 45.52) and laughing gas users (RRR=3.71; 95% CI 3.04 to 4.51). Multivariate analysis combining demographics and smoking status showed that only gender (being male) and tobacco use independently predicted regular use of e-cigarettes (p<0.001). Among weekly smokers who had tried tobacco and e-cigarettes (n=877), the vast majority reported that they tried tobacco before using an e-cigarette (n=727; 82.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Since 2013, youth experimentation with e-cigarettes has grown rapidly in Wales and is now almost twice as common as experimentation with tobacco. Regular use has almost doubled, and is increasing among never and non-smokers. These data suggest that e-cigarette use among youth is an emerging public health issue, even though there remains no evidence that it represents a new pathway into smoking. Mixed methods longitudinal research is needed to explore why young people use e-cigarettes, and to develop interventions to prevent further increases in use.

Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Rapid developments in e-cigarettes, or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), and the evolution of the overall tobacco product marketplace warrant frequent evaluation of the published literature. The purpose of this article is to report updated findings from a comprehensive review of the published scientific literature on ENDS.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The authors conducted a systematic review of published empirical research literature on ENDS through May 31, 2016, using a detailed search strategy in the PubMed electronic database, expert review, and additional targeted searches. Included studies presented empirical findings and were coded to at least one of nine topics: (1) Product Features; (2) Health Effects; (3) Consumer Perceptions; (4) Patterns of Use; (5) Potential to Induce Dependence; (6) Smoking Cessation; (7) Marketing and Communication; (8) Sales; and (9) Policies; reviews and commentaries were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted by multiple coders (October 2015 to August 2016) into a standardized form and synthesized qualitatively by topic.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There were 687 articles included in this systematic review. The majority of studies assessed patterns of ENDS use and consumer perceptions of ENDS, followed by studies examining health effects of vaping and product features.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies indicate that ENDS are increasing in use, particularly among current smokers, pose substantially less harm to smokers than cigarettes, are being used to reduce/quit smoking, and are widely available. More longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to evaluate the impact of ENDS on population-level tobacco use and determine the health effects of longer-term vaping.

E-cigarettes and Urologic Health: A Collaborative Review of Toxicology, Epidemiology, and Potential Risks

CONTEXT

Use of electronic cigarettes (ECs) is on the rise in most high-income countries. Smoking conventional cigarettes is a known risk factor for urologic malignancy incidence, progression, and mortality, as well as for other urologic health indicators. The potential impact of EC use on urologic health is therefore of clinical interest to the urology community.

OBJECTIVE

To review the available data on current EC use, including potential benefits in urologic patients, potential issues linked to toxicology of EC constituents, and how this might translate into urologic health risks.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A Medline search was carried out in August 2016 for studies reporting urologic health outcomes and EC use. Snowballing techniques were also used to identify relevant studies from recent systematic reviews. A narrative synthesis of data around EC health outcomes, toxicology, and potential use in smoking cessation and health policy was carried out.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We found no studies to date that have been specifically designed to prospectively assess urologic health risks, even in an observational setting. Generating such data would be an important contribution to the debate on the role of ECs in public health and clinical practice. There is evidence from a recent Cochrane review of RCTs that ECs can support smoking cessation. There are emerging data indicating that potentially harmful components of ECs such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals could be linked to possible urologic health risks.

CONCLUSIONS

ECs might be a useful tool to encourage cessation of conventional cigarette smoking. However, data collection around the specific impact of ECs on urologic health is needed to clarify the possible patient benefits, outcomes, and adverse events.

PATIENT SUMMARY

While electronic cigarettes might help some people to stop smoking, their overall impact on urologic health is not clear.

A framework for evaluating the public health impact of e-cigarettes and other vaporized nicotine products

The use of vaporized nicotine products (VNPs), especially e-cigarettes and, to a lesser extent, pressurized aerosol nicotine products and heat-not-burn tobacco products, are being adopted increasingly as an alternative to smoking combusted products, primarily cigarettes. Considerable controversy has accompanied their marketing and use. We propose a framework that describes and incorporates patterns of VNP and combustible cigarette use in determining the total amount of toxic exposure effects on population health. We begin by considering toxicity and the outcomes relevant to population health. We then present the framework and define different measures of VNP use; namely, trial and long-term use for exclusive cigarette smokers, exclusive VNP and dual (cigarette and VNP) use. Using a systems thinking framework and decision theory we considered potential pathways for current, former and never users of VNPs. We then consider the evidence to date and the probable impacts of VNP use on public health, the potential effects of different policy approaches and the possible influence of the tobacco industry on VNP and cigarette use.

Electronic cigarette use in the European Union: analysis of a representative sample of 27 460 Europeans from 28 countries

AIMS

To assess prevalence of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use, reported changes in smoking status due to e-cigarette use and correlates of e-cigarette use in the European Union (EU) member states in 2014.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of EU citizens representative of the population (Special Eurobarometer 429).

SETTING

All 28 Member States of the EU.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 27 460 EU citizens aged ≥ 15 years (after excluding those who responded 'Do not know' to the questions about smoking status and e-cigarette use).

MEASUREMENTS

Descriptive analysis [%, 95% confidence interval (CI)] of e-cigarette use prevalence (current use, past use and past experimentation) according to smoking status, self-reported changes in smoking status according to patterns of e-cigarette use and logistic regression analysis to examine correlates of e-cigarette use, especially socio-demographic factors and smoking status.

FINDINGS

Ever e-cigarette use was reported by 31.1% (95% CI = 30.0-32.2%) of current smokers, 10.8% (95% CI = 10.0-11.7%) of former smokers and 2.3% (95% CI = 2.1-2.6%) of never smokers. Past experimentation [7.2% (95% CI = 6.9-7.5%)] was more common than current [1.8% (95% CI = 1.6-1.9%)] and past use [2.6% (95% CI = 2.4-2.8%)]. Extrapolated to the whole population, approximately 48.5 million EU citizens were ever e-cigarette users, with 76.8% using nicotine-containing e-cigarettes. An estimated 6.1 and 9.2 million EU citizens had quit and reduced smoking with the help of e-cigarettes, respectively. Initiation with e-cigarettes was reported by 0.8% (95% CI = 0.6-0.9%) of participants who reported ever use of any tobacco-related product. Only 1.3% (95% CI = 1.1-1.5%) of never smokers used nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, with 0.09% (95% CI = 0.04-0.14%) reporting daily nicotine use. Smoking cessation with the help of e-cigarettes was reported by 35.1% (95% CI = 30.7-39.5%) of current e-cigarette users, while a further 32.2% (95% CI = 29.9-36.5%) reported smoking reduction. Being current [odds ratio (OR) = 21.23, 95% CI = 18.32-24.59) or former smokers (OR = 6.49, 95% CI = 5.49-7.67) were the strongest correlates of ever e-cigarette use.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarette use in the European Union appears to be largely confined to current or former smokers, while current use and nicotine use by people who have never smoked is rare. More than one-third of current e-cigarette users polled reported smoking cessation and reduction.

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.

Reasons for using flavored liquids among electronic cigarette users: A concept mapping study

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) aerosolize liquids often containing flavorants for inhalation. Few studies have examined the role of flavors in ECIG use. This study's purpose was to examine reasons for flavored ECIG use using a mixed-method approach, concept mapping (CM).

METHODS

Forty-six past 30-day adult ECIG users recruited from vape forums/conferences completed three online CM tasks. Participants brainstormed responses to a prompt: "A specific reason I use flavored e-liquid in my electronic cigarette product is…". The final 107 brainstormed statements were sorted by participants into groups of similar content. Participants rated each statement on a 7-point scale (1-Definitely NOT a reason to 7-Definitely a reason) based on a prompt: "This is a specific reason why I used flavored e-liquid in my electronic cigarette product in the past month." A cluster map was generated from participants' sorting and ratings using CM statistical software. Cluster mean ratings were compared.

RESULTS

Analysis revealed five clusters of reasons for flavored ECIG use including Increased Satisfaction/Enjoyment, Better Feel/Taste than Cigarettes, Variety/Customization, Food Craving Suppression, and Social Impacts. Statements in the Increased Satisfaction/Enjoyment and Better Feel/Taste than Cigarettes clusters were rated significantly higher than statements from other clusters (ps<0.05). Some statements indicated flavors were perceived as masking agents for nicotine or other bad tastes associated with cigarette smoking making ECIG use more palatable.

CONCLUSIONS

Flavored ECIGs are used for many reasons. Some statements suggested flavors may increase the rewarding and possible addictive effects of ECIGs. These results support continued examination of the role of flavors and ECIG use behaviors.

E-cigarettes for the management of nicotine addiction

In this review, we discuss current evidence on electronic cigarettes (ECs), a rapidly evolving class of nicotine delivery system, and their role in managing nicotine addiction, specifically in helping smokers to quit smoking and/or reduce the amount of tobacco they smoke. The current evidence base is limited to three randomized trials (only one compares ECs with nicotine replacement therapy) and a growing number of EC user surveys (n=6), case reports (n=4), and cohort studies (n=8). Collectively, these studies suggest modest cessation efficacy and a few adverse effects, at least with the short-term use. On this basis, we provide advice for health care providers on providing balanced information for patients who enquire about ECs. More research, specifically well-conducted large efficacy trials comparing ECs with standard smoking cessation management (eg, nicotine replacement therapy plus behavioral support) and long-term prospective studies for adverse events, are urgently needed to fill critical knowledge gaps on these products.

Self-titration by experienced e-cigarette users: blood nicotine delivery and subjective effects

RATIONALE

Self-titration is well documented in the tobacco literature. The extent to which e-cigarette users (vapers) self-titrate is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the effects of high and low nicotine strength liquid on puffing topography, nicotine delivery and subjective effects in experienced vapers.

METHODS

Eleven experienced male vapers completed 60 min of ad libitum vaping under low (6 mg/mL) and high (24 mg/mL) nicotine liquid conditions in two separate sessions. Measurements included puffing topography (puff number, puff duration, volume of liquid consumed) and changes in plasma nicotine levels, craving, withdrawal symptoms, self-reported hit, satisfaction and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Liquid consumption and puff number were higher and puff duration longer, in the low nicotine strength condition (all ps < 0.01). The mean difference in nicotine boost from baseline in the low condition was 8.59 (7.52) ng/mL, 16.99 (11.72) ng/mL and 22.03 (16.19) ng/mL at 10, 30 and 60 min, respectively. Corresponding values for the high condition were 33.77 (34.88) ng/mL, 35.48 (28.31) ng/mL and 43.57 (34.78) ng/mL (ps < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between conditions in self-reported craving, withdrawal symptoms, satisfaction, hit or adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Vapers engaged in compensatory puffing with lower nicotine strength liquid, doubling their consumption. Whilst compensatory puffing was sufficient to reduce craving and withdrawal discomfort, self-titration was incomplete with significantly higher plasma nicotine levels in the high condition.

Health professionals in Flanders perceive the potential health risks of vaping as lower than those of smoking but do not recommend using e-cigarettes to their smoking patients

Background

Many misperceptions of both risks and opportunities of e-cigarettes (e-cigs) exist among the general population and among physicians, although e-cigs could be a valuable harm reduction tool for current smokers.

Methods

Two groups in Flanders, namely general practitioners (GPs; family doctors) and tobacco counselors filled out an online questionnaire with regard to their attitudes and risk perceptions concerning e-cigs. Statements included were on the safety and the addictive properties of e-cigs in absolute terms, whereas other items compared e-cigs with regular tobacco cigarettes. Statements about possible “gateway” and “renormalization” effects, selling to minors, and use in public places and on the potential of e-cigs as a smoking cessation aid were also included. Respondents were also asked for the rate at which their patients asked information about e-cigs, if they would recommend e-cigs to their smoking patients, and whether they had information brochures on e-cigs.

Results

About 70 % believed that e-cigs are harmful to vapers, and about half to two thirds believed that e-cigs are carcinogenic, increase cardiovascular risk, and increase the risk of chronic lung disease. Also, a substantial minority incorrectly believed these risks to be no less than those resulting from regular smoking. Ten to almost 20 % disagreed that e-cigs are healthier and represent less risk for the main serious smoking-related diseases than conventional cigarettes. More than half of the respondents disagreed that e-cigs are an effective smoking cessation aid. None (0 %) offered the strongest level of agreement for recommending e-cigs to their clients/patients, but GPs agreed to a lesser degree a bit more often than tobacco counselors. Almost none had information leaflets for potentially interested patients. Finally, the majority of our sample also believed that e-cigs will cause renormalization of smoking and that e-cigs will lead to an uptake of conventional smoking and disagreed with allowing vaping in enclosed public places.

Conclusions

Health professionals in Flanders perceive the potential health risks of vaping as lower than those of smoking but do not recommend using e-cigs to their smoking patients.

Respiratory infections and pneumonia: potential benefits of switching from smoking to vaping

Abstaining from tobacco smoking is likely to lower the risk of respiratory infections and pneumonia. Unfortunately, quitting smoking is not easy. Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are emerging as an attractive long-term alternative nicotine source to conventional cigarettes and are being adopted by smokers who wish to reduce or quit cigarette consumption. Also, given that the propylene glycol in EC aerosols is a potent bactericidal agent, switching from smoking to regular vaping is likely to produce additional lung health benefits. Here, we critically address some of the concerns arising from regular EC use in relation to lung health, including respiratory infections and pneumonia. In conclusion, smokers who quit by switching to regular ECs use can reduce risk and reverse harm from tobacco smoking. Innovation in the e-vapour category is likely not only to further minimise residual health risks, but also to maximise health benefits.