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...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
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 |