Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives Despite the aggressive marketing of electronic nicotine device systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation tools, the evidence of their effectiveness is mixed. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of ENDS on cigarette smoking cessation, as compa...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jennifer Zhe Zhang, Ama Tweneboa Kodua
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2021-02-01
Series:BMJ Open
Online Access:https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/2/e044222.full
id doaj-28f5519912334c0ea9375bafad8f7fca
record_format Article
spelling doaj-28f5519912334c0ea9375bafad8f7fca2021-06-25T13:35:47ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552021-02-0111210.1136/bmjopen-2020-044222Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysisJennifer Zhe Zhang0Ama Tweneboa Kodua1School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaObjectives Despite the aggressive marketing of electronic nicotine device systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation tools, the evidence of their effectiveness is mixed. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of ENDS on cigarette smoking cessation, as compared with other types of nicotine replacement therapies (NRT).Design Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform trials registries were searched through 17 June 2020.Eligibility criteria for studies Randomised controlled trials in which any type of ENDS was compared with any type of NRT, in traditional cigarette users.Data extraction and synthesis The primary outcome was smoking cessation, defined as abstinence from traditional cigarette smoking for any time period, as reported in each included study, regardless of whether abstinence is self-reported or biochemically validated. Secondary outcomes included smoking reduction, harms, withdrawal and acceptance of therapy. A random-effect model was used, and data were pooled in meta-analyses where appropriate.Results Six studies were retained from 270. Most outcomes were judged to be at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was graded as ‘low’ or ‘very low’. Pooled results showed no difference in smoking cessation (rate ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.09), proportion of participants reducing smoking consumption (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.98), mean reduction in cigarettes smoked per day (mean difference 1.11, 95% CI −0.41 to 2.63), or harms (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), between groups.Conclusion We found no difference in smoking cessation, harms and smoking reduction between e-cigarette and NRT users. However, the quality of the evidence was low. Further research is needed before widespread recommendations are made with regard to the use of ENDS.PROSPERO registration number Systematic review registration number: protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 27th, 2020; CRD42020169416.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/2/e044222.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jennifer Zhe Zhang
Ama Tweneboa Kodua
spellingShingle Jennifer Zhe Zhang
Ama Tweneboa Kodua
Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BMJ Open
author_facet Jennifer Zhe Zhang
Ama Tweneboa Kodua
author_sort Jennifer Zhe Zhang
title Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series BMJ Open
issn 2044-6055
publishDate 2021-02-01
description Objectives Despite the aggressive marketing of electronic nicotine device systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation tools, the evidence of their effectiveness is mixed. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of ENDS on cigarette smoking cessation, as compared with other types of nicotine replacement therapies (NRT).Design Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform trials registries were searched through 17 June 2020.Eligibility criteria for studies Randomised controlled trials in which any type of ENDS was compared with any type of NRT, in traditional cigarette users.Data extraction and synthesis The primary outcome was smoking cessation, defined as abstinence from traditional cigarette smoking for any time period, as reported in each included study, regardless of whether abstinence is self-reported or biochemically validated. Secondary outcomes included smoking reduction, harms, withdrawal and acceptance of therapy. A random-effect model was used, and data were pooled in meta-analyses where appropriate.Results Six studies were retained from 270. Most outcomes were judged to be at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was graded as ‘low’ or ‘very low’. Pooled results showed no difference in smoking cessation (rate ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.09), proportion of participants reducing smoking consumption (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.98), mean reduction in cigarettes smoked per day (mean difference 1.11, 95% CI −0.41 to 2.63), or harms (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), between groups.Conclusion We found no difference in smoking cessation, harms and smoking reduction between e-cigarette and NRT users. However, the quality of the evidence was low. Further research is needed before widespread recommendations are made with regard to the use of ENDS.PROSPERO registration number Systematic review registration number: protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 27th, 2020; CRD42020169416.
url https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/2/e044222.full
work_keys_str_mv AT jenniferzhezhang smokingcessationinindividualswhousevapingascomparedwithtraditionalnicotinereplacementtherapiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT amatweneboakodua smokingcessationinindividualswhousevapingascomparedwithtraditionalnicotinereplacementtherapiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
_version_ 1721359543206674432