RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence on the efficacy of e-cigarette use for sustained smoking and nicotine cessation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.11.02.20224212
DO 10.1101/2020.11.02.20224212
A1 E Banks
A1 A Yazidjoglou
A1 S Brown
A1 L Ford
A1 T Zulfiqar
A1 O Baenziger
A1 G. Joshy
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/04/2020.11.02.20224212.abstract
AB Objective To systematically review and meta-analyse evidence regarding the efficacy of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation aids.Data Sources PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched up to February-March 2020 (PROSPERO registration CRD42020170692).Study selection Published 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 Extraction Data were extracted independently into a pre-specified template. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and evidence quality rated using GRADE.Data Synthesis From 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.Conclusions There 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.Implications This 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted as part of an independent program of work examining the health impacts of e-cigarettes, funded by the Australian Government Department of Health. Professor Banks is supported by a Principal Research Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (reference: 1136128).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesSupplementary material provided separately