Back

Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence on the efficacy of e-cigarette use for sustained smoking and nicotine cessation

Banks, E.; Yazidjoglou, A.; Brown, S.; Ford, L.; Zulfiqar, T.; Baenziger, O.; Joshy, G.

2020-11-04 epidemiology
10.1101/2020.11.02.20224212 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo systematically review and meta-analyse evidence regarding the efficacy of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation aids. Data SourcesPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched up to February-March 2020 (PROSPERO registration CRD42020170692). Study selectionPublished peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of ENDS for sustained cessation of combustible tobacco smoking and/or nicotine use, compared with no intervention, placebo or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) by intention-to-treat, with a minimum of four months follow-up. Data ExtractionData were extracted independently into a pre-specified template. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaborations tool and evidence quality rated using GRADE. Data SynthesisFrom 3,973 titles identified, nine RCTs were identified; 330 of 5,445 smokers randomised quit. Smoking cessation did notPublic health consequences differ significantly for randomisation to ENDS versus: no intervention (three studies, random-effects meta-analysis RR 1.95; 95%CI 0.90-4.22); placebo (three studies, 1.61; 0.93-2.78) or NRT (three studies; 1.25; 0.74-2.11). Fixed-effects sensitivity analyses showed significant results for ENDS vs NRT (1.43; 1.10-1.86). Smokers randomised to ENDS were substantially more likely than control to use nicotine at follow-up. Overall evidence quality was low. Considering only studies without potential competing interests further limited evidence but did not materially change conclusions. ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence that ENDS are efficacious for smoking cessation compared to no intervention, placebo or NRT. Results are promising, particularly for therapeutic use, but vary according to analytic method. ENDS may lead to greater ongoing nicotine exposure than other smoking cessation methods. ImplicationsThis systematic review and meta-analysis consolidates current evidence on the efficacy of ENDS as an aid to sustained smoking and nicotine cessation and considers these findings in the context of potential competing interests. While findings are promising more research - preferably independent of industry funding - is needed to provide robust evidence of the efficacy of ENDS for smoking cessation. Future research should investigate nicotine cessation in addition to smoking cessation.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Addiction
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
29.2%
2
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.7%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.6%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.2%
6
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
7
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
8
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
9
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
10
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
11
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
12
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
13
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
14
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
15
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
16
Nicotine and Tobacco Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 72%
0.8%
18
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
19
International Journal of Drug Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
20
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
21
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%