Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

A new Cochrane review on electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: should we change our practice?

Charlotta Pisinger, Jørgen Vestbo
European Respiratory Journal 2020 56: 2004083; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.04083-2020
Charlotta Pisinger
1University of Copenhagen and the Danish Heart Foundation, Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jørgen Vestbo
2Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jørgen Vestbo
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

There are several concerns regarding the review. Contradicting results from cohort studies were not considered. Smoking cessation rates achieved with e-cigarettes are low. The harms of long-term e-cigarette use will outweight the potential benefit. https://bit.ly/3khrzBZ

To the Editor:

In 2014, a Cochrane review concluded that there was evidence from two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that electronic cigarettes help smokers to stop smoking long term. The confidence in the result was rated “low”. In 2016, the same conclusion was reached. In the recently published 2020 update [1], the authors write that they included 50 completed studies, representing 12 430 participants. When you read closer, the smoking cessation conclusions are based on 12 RCTs, and half of these were small studies. The authors judged only four of the studies to be at low risk of bias [2–5].

It was possible for the authors to compare e-cigarettes with nicotine with three existing evidence-based smoking cessation treatments (table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and behavioural support/counseling

Based on three trials, the authors concluded that there is moderate certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that e-cigarettes with nicotine increase quit rates at 6 months or longer compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The other conclusion is that there is very low certainty evidence that e-cigarettes with nicotine increase quit rates compared to behavioural support alone/to no support. The effect of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes when added to NRT is unclear. One small varenicline trial has been performed and showed significantly better quit rates than e-cigarettes with nicotine, but the trial was rated as having a very high risk of bias.

The review has been systematic, and the meta-analyses have high quality. Two review authors have independently and systematically assessed the risks of bias for each study, and a conservative approach was used for missing data; all this is strength. The three principal investigators of included trials (and co-authors of the review) were, at least, not involved with data extraction or “risk of bias” assessments.

However, there are some concerns. The authors write that in two studies where e-cigarettes with nicotine was provided, nicotine levels were judged to be so low that they chose to include these studies as non-nicotine e-cigarette comparisons. This is a very unusual decision. One of the studies showed lower effect of e-cigarette use than of NRT use.

Behavioural support and no support were merged as one comparison group. This is also an unusual decision, as behavioural support has an evidence-based effect, while no support has no effect on smoking cessation; again, this decision would favour e-cigarettes.

An RCT compared free nicotine e-cigarettes with incentives; this is not mentioned. Redeemable deposits were significantly superior to e-cigarettes (odds ratio 2.9) [6].

The authors decided to include uncontrolled intervention studies because of the paucity of RCTs. These cohort studies were primarily used to investigate the safety of e-cigarette use. It is a good decision to supplement with longitudinal studies when there are few RCTs, but it is puzzling why authors decided not to include the many existing cohort studies from the general population. It is well-known that a selection occurs in clinical trials (inclusion of more resourceful persons with higher socioeconomic status and better health).

A co-author of the review, C. Notley, was a speaker at the Global Forum on Nicotine, that facilitates a dialogue with the tobacco industry. L. Dawkins was chosen as reviewer of the Cochrane review. In previous publications she stated that she had a collaborative relationship with e-cigarette companies, had received funding to speak at research conferences and benefits in kind from e-cigarette companies [7, 8]. The Cochrane review states that she has not received any funds from e-cigarette companies in the past 4 years. A recent study found a strong association between tobacco- and e-cigarette industry-related conflict of interest and industry-favourable results [9].

The authors do not present a balanced scientific view in the review. As an example, the authors write that there is a concern that e-cigarettes may be a gateway to smoking initiation, but that there are limited data with which to support or refute this concern. However, there is substantial evidence that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking initiation [10, 11] and many newer longitudinal studies have confirmed this finding, also in the UK [12]. The same occurs when authors discuss dual use. Only studies where toxins were found to be reduced are mentioned, even though several other studies demonstrated that toxicant exposure was either not reduced or increased [13]. Results from population-based cohort studies showing that dual use might be more harmful than smoking alone are not mentioned [14, 15].

The major flaw of the review is that it does not address following facts:

  • 1) Population-based cohort studies do not show a benefit of e-cigarette use on smoking cessation;

  • 2) Many of those who use e-cigarettes for smoking cessation continue using them long-term; and

  • 3) A large number of in vitro, animal, experimental human and population-based studies have shown negative health effects of e-cigarette use.

Before we recommend the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool to the broad population, we need to know what happens when they are used in the population, not only in intervention studies (including a selected population advised by researchers/health professionals). It would have been highly relevant in this review to mention that many population-based longitudinal studies show no effect of e-cigarette use on long-term smoking cessation [16–18] and that some cohorts show an increased risk of relapse in e-cigarette users [19, 20].

It would also have been very relevant to mention that many of those who quit with e-cigarettes continue using e-cigarettes in the long term (80% after 1 year in the trial reported by Hajek et al. [2]) [3, 21]. Smoking cessation medication is typically prescribed/recommended for 8–12 weeks, as we want to avoid adverse events. However, when it comes to e-cigarettes, people are just asked to switch and no stop-date for e-cigarette use is recommended; they are used as consumer products.

The Cochrane review also investigated the safety of e-cigarette use and the authors concluded that they “did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine e-cigarettes, but the longest follow-up was 2 years”. It would have been more correct to write “6 months”, as most of the included studies had a follow-up of 6 months. Authors do not mention any of the hundreds of animal, human and in vitro studies indicating harmful effects of e-cigarette use [22–25]. This could be ignored in 2014 as our knowledge was sparse, but not in 2020. A recent review concluded that the current knowledge of these effects is insufficient to determine whether the respiratory health effects of e-cigarettes are less than those of combustible tobacco products [24].

Should we change our practice based on this new Cochrane review?

It is noteworthy to look at the quit rates. The pragmatic RCTs showed that approximately 5–7% of the participants in the e-cigarette group were smoke-free after 6 months [3, 6, 21]. Clinic-based RCTs, offering e-cigarettes and behavioural therapy, achieved abstinence rates of 16–18% after 6 or 12 months [2, 26]. An evaluation of the UK's national smoking cessation clinics (before e-cigarettes were invented) showed validated quit rates of 15% at 1 year [27], which is comparable to the abstinence rate of 16% at 1 year in Danish national smoking cessation clinics [28]. These public smoking cessation clinics are attended by many smokers with low socio-economic status, people with mental problems, pregnant women, etc., who have a high risk of relapse. E-cigarettes are not a miracle cure for smokers.

We have substantial evidence that the highest quit rates are achieved when offering intensive multi-session behavioural support combined with pharmacotherapy (varenicline or a combination of NRT (patch and e.g. spray, inhaler)) [29]. This is the “gold standard” treatment and high prolonged abstinence rates can be achieved. An RCT admitted patients with COPD to hospital for 2 weeks and offered gold standard smoking cessation treatment. More than 50% were abstinent in the intervention group after 1 year compared with 7% in the “usual care” group [30].

Based on this Cochrane review we can conclude that e-cigarettes might be more effective than NRT. The conclusions are applicable in a trial setting, but not in a population-based real-life setting. There is no evidence that we should recommend e-cigarettes instead of varenicline or bupropion. Smoking cessation counselling should still be recommended to all smokers, motivated as well as non-motivated.

Before we start recommending e-cigarettes to smokers, we must remember the Hippocratic Oath: “first do no harm”. The Cochrane review suggest that an additional four people for every 100 would quit smoking with nicotine e-cigarettes compared to NRT. We must question ourselves if the benefit of the four extra people who quit with e-cigarettes will out-weight the harms of long-term, maybe life-long, use of e-cigarettes in the many people who continue using them after smoking cessation. With current knowledge of the potential long-term health effects of e-cigarettes we wouldn't dare recommending them.

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-04083-2020.Shareable

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: C. Pisinger has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Vestbo reports personal fees for advisory board work and lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK and Novartis, and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work.

  • Received November 2, 2020.
  • Accepted November 5, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2020
https://www.ersjournals.com/user-licence

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hartmann-Boyce J,
    2. McRobbie H,
    3. Lindson N, et al.
    Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 9: CD010216.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Hajek P,
    2. Phillips-Waller A,
    3. Przulj D, et al.
    A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 629–637. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1808779
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bullen C,
    2. Howe C,
    3. Laugesen M, et al.
    Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 382: 1629–1637. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61842-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Lee SH,
    2. Ahn SH,
    3. Cheong YS
    . Effect of electronic cigarettes on smoking reduction and cessation in Korean male smokers: a randomized controlled study. J Am Board Fam Med 2019; 32: 567–574. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2019.04.180384
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Lee SM,
    2. Tenney R,
    3. Wallace AW, et al.
    E-cigarettes versus nicotine patches for perioperative smoking cessation: a pilot randomized trial. PeerJ 2018; 6: e5609. doi:10.7717/peerj.5609
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Halpern SD,
    2. Harhay MO,
    3. Saulsgiver K, et al.
    A pragmatic trial of e-cigarettes, incentives, and drugs for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 2302–2310. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1715757
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Dawkins L,
    2. Turner J,
    3. Roberts A, et al.
    'Vaping' profiles and preferences: an online survey of electronic cigarette users. Addiction 2013; 108: 1115–1125. doi:10.1111/add.12150
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Dawkins L,
    2. Corcoran O
    . Acute electronic cigarette use: nicotine delivery and subjective effects in regular users. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2014; 231: 401–407. doi:10.1007/s00213-013-3249-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Pisinger C,
    2. Godtfredsen N,
    3. Bender AM
    . A conflict of interest is strongly associated with tobacco industry-favourable results, indicating no harm of e-cigarettes. Prev Med 2019; 119: 124–131. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Prochaska JJ
    . The public health consequences of e-cigarettes: a review by the National Academies of Sciences. A call for more research, a need for regulatory action. Addiction 2019; 114: 587–589. doi:10.1111/add.14478
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Soneji S,
    2. Barrington-Trimis JL,
    3. Wills TA, et al.
    Association between initial use of e-cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking among adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 2017; 171: 788–797. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1488
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Hammond D,
    2. Reid JL,
    3. Cole AG, et al.
    Electronic cigarette use and smoking initiation among youth: a longitudinal cohort study. CMAJ 2017; 189: E1328–E1336. doi:10.1503/cmaj.161002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Shahab L,
    2. Goniewicz ML,
    3. Blount BC, et al.
    Nicotine, carcinogen, and toxin exposure in long-term e-cigarette and nicotine replacement therapy users: a cross-sectional study. Ann Intern Med 2017; 166: 390–400. doi:10.7326/M16-1107
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Bhatta DN,
    2. Glantz SA
    . Association of e-cigarette use with respiratory disease among adults: a longitudinal analysis. Am J Prev Med 2020; 58: 182–190. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2019.07.028
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Kim CY,
    2. Paek YJ,
    3. Seo HG, et al.
    Dual use of electronic and conventional cigarettes is associated with higher cardiovascular risk factors in Korean men. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 5612. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62545-3
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Chen R,
    2. Pierce JP,
    3. Leas EC, et al.
    E-cigarette use to aid long-term smoking cessation in the US: prospective evidence from the PATH cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 2020; in press [https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa161]. doi:10.1093/aje/kwaa161
    1. Borderud SP,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Burkhalter JE, et al.
    Electronic cigarette use among patients with cancer: characteristics of electronic cigarette users and their smoking cessation outcomes. Cancer 2014; 120: 3527–3535. doi:10.1002/cncr.28811
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Glantz SA,
    2. Bareham DW
    . E-cigarettes: use, effects on smoking, risks, and policy implications. Annu Rev Public Health 2018; 39: 215–235. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013757
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. McMillen R,
    2. Klein JD,
    3. Wilson K, et al.
    E-cigarette use and future cigarette initiation among never smokers and relapse among former smokers in the PATH study. Public Health Rep 2019; 134: 528–536. doi:10.1177/0033354919864369
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Everard CD,
    2. Silveira ML,
    3. Kimmel HL, et al.
    Association of electronic nicotine delivery system use with cigarette smoking relapse among former smokers in the United States. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: e204813. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4813
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Walker N,
    2. Parag V,
    3. Verbiest M, et al.
    Nicotine patches used in combination with e-cigarettes (with and without nicotine) for smoking cessation: a pragmatic, randomised trial. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 54–64. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30269-3
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Tang MS,
    2. Wu XR,
    3. Lee HW, et al.
    Electronic-cigarette smoke induces lung adenocarcinoma and bladder urothelial hyperplasia in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2019; 116: 21727–21731. doi:10.1073/pnas.1911321116
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Skotsimara G,
    2. Antonopoulos AS,
    3. Oikonomou E, et al.
    Cardiovascular effects of electronic cigarettes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2019; 26: 1219–1228. doi:10.1177/2047487319832975
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Gotts JE,
    2. Jordt SE,
    3. McConnell R, et al.
    What are the respiratory effects of e-cigarettes? BMJ 2019; 366: l5275. doi:10.1136/bmj.l5275
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Pisinger C
    . A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes. Document prepared for the World Health Organization December 2015. www.who.int/tobacco/industry/product_regulation/BackgroundPapersENDS3_4November-.pdf?ua=1 Glostrup, Research Center for Prevention and Health, 2016.
  23. ↵
    1. Lucchiari C,
    2. Masiero M,
    3. Mazzocco K, et al.
    Benefits of e-cigarettes in smoking reduction and in pulmonary health among chronic smokers undergoing a lung cancer screening program at 6 months. Addict Behav 2020; 103: 106222. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106222
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Bauld L,
    2. Bell K,
    3. McCullough L, et al.
    The effectiveness of NHS smoking cessation services: a systematic review. J Public Health (Oxf) 2010; 32: 71–82. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdp074
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. Kjaer NT,
    2. Evald T,
    3. Rasmussen M, et al.
    The effectiveness of nationally implemented smoking interventions in Denmark. Prev Med 2007; 45: 12–14. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.04.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Stead LF,
    2. Koilpillai P,
    3. Fanshawe TR, et al.
    Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 3: CD008286.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Sundblad BM,
    2. Larsson K,
    3. Nathell L
    . High rate of smoking abstinence in COPD patients: smoking cessation by hospitalization. Nicotine Tob Res 2008; 10: 883–890. doi:10.1080/14622200802023890
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 56 Issue 6 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 56 (6)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A new Cochrane review on electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: should we change our practice?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
A new Cochrane review on electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: should we change our practice?
Charlotta Pisinger, Jørgen Vestbo
European Respiratory Journal Dec 2020, 56 (6) 2004083; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.04083-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
A new Cochrane review on electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: should we change our practice?
Charlotta Pisinger, Jørgen Vestbo
European Respiratory Journal Dec 2020, 56 (6) 2004083; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.04083-2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Airway immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in COPD patients
  • Wider access to rifapentine-based regimens is needed for TB care globally
  • Screening for PVOD in heterozygous EIF2AK4 variant carriers
Show more Agora

Correspondence

  • Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India
  • Reply: Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India
  • Risk factors for disease progression in fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society