smoking cessation

Importance: Little is known about the relative effectiveness of nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes (ECs) compared with varenicline as smoking cessation aids.

Objective: To determine the relative effectiveness of ECs in smoking cessation.

Design, setting, and participants: This randomized placebo-controlled single-center trial was conducted in northern Finland. Participants aged 25 to 75 years who smoked daily and had volunteered to quit smoking were recruited from August 1, 2018, to February 20, 2020, via local media. The trial included 52 weeks of follow-up. All data analyses were conducted from September 1, 2022, to January 15, 2024. The participants, study nurses, and researchers were masked to group assignment.

Intervention: The participants were assigned by block randomization to receive 18 mg/mL of nicotine-containing ECs together with placebo tablets, varenicline with standard dosing together with nicotine-free ECs, or placebo tablets together with nicotine-free ECs, all combined with a motivational interview, with the intervention phase lasting for 12 weeks.

Main outcome and measure: The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day conventional cigarette smoking abstinence as confirmed by the exhaled carbon monoxide level on week 26. The analysis followed the intent-to-treat principle.

Results: Of the 561 recruited participants, 458 (81.6%) eligible participants (257 women [56%]; 201 men [44%]; mean [SD] age, 51 [11.6] years) were randomized. The primary outcome occurred in 61 of 152 participants (40.4%) in the EC group, 67 of 153 (43.8%) in the varenicline group, and 30 of 153 (19.7%) in the placebo group (P < .001). In the pairwise comparison, placebo differed statistically significantly from ECs (risk difference [RD], 20.7%; 95% CI, 10.4-30.4; P < .001) and varenicline (RD, 24.1%; 95% CI, 13.7-33.7; P < .001), but the difference was statistically insignificant between ECs and varenicline (RD, 3.4%; 95% CI, -7.6 to 14.3; P = .56). No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusions: This randomized clinical trial found that varenicline and nicotine-containing ECs were both effective in helping individuals in quitting smoking conventional cigarettes for up to 6 months.

Background: Mobile phone-based smoking cessation support (mCessation) offers the opportunity to provide behavioural support to those who cannot or do not want face-to-face support. In addition, mCessation can be automated and therefore provided affordably even in resource-poor settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012.

Objectives: To determine whether mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation rates in people who smoke.

Search methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the most recent searches was 29 October 2018.

Selection criteria: Participants were smokers of any age. Eligible interventions were those testing any type of predominantly mobile phone-based programme (such as text messages (or smartphone app) for smoking cessation. We included randomised controlled trials with smoking cessation outcomes reported at at least six-month follow-up.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed both study eligibility checks and data extraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analyses of the most stringent measures of abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method, pooling studies with similar interventions and similar comparators to calculate risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted analyses including all randomised (with dropouts counted as still smoking) and complete cases only.

Main results: This review includes 26 studies (33,849 participants). Overall, we judged 13 studies to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. Settings and recruitment procedures varied across studies, but most studies were conducted in high-income countries. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that automated text messaging interventions were more effective than minimal smoking cessation support (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.00; I2 = 71%; 13 studies, 14,133 participants). There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that text messaging added to other smoking cessation interventions was more effective than the other smoking cessation interventions alone (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; I2 = 0%, 4 studies, 997 participants). Two studies comparing text messaging with other smoking cessation interventions, and three studies comparing high- and low-intensity messaging, did not show significant differences between groups (RR 0.92 95% CI 0.61 to 1.40; I2 = 27%; 2 studies, 2238 participants; and RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 12,985 participants, respectively) but confidence intervals were wide in the former comparison. Five studies compared a smoking cessation smartphone app with lower-intensity smoking cessation support (either a lower-intensity app or non-app minimal support). We pooled the evidence and deemed it to be of very low certainty due to inconsistency and serious imprecision. It provided no evidence that smartphone apps improved the likelihood of smoking cessation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; I2 = 59%; 5 studies, 3079 participants). Other smartphone apps tested differed from the apps included in the analysis, as two used contingency management and one combined text messaging with an app, and so we did not pool them. Using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised did not substantially alter the findings.

Authors' conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence that automated text message-based smoking cessation interventions result in greater quit rates than minimal smoking cessation support. There is moderate-certainty evidence of the benefit of text messaging interventions in addition to other smoking cessation support in comparison with that smoking cessation support alone. The evidence comparing smartphone apps with less intensive support was of very low certainty, and more randomised controlled trials are needed to test these interventions.

BACKGROUND:

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smokingabstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS:

We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I2 = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I2 = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I2 = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I2 = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I2 = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I2 = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I2 = 0%; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.

BACKGROUND

E-cigarettes are commonly used in attempts to stop smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their effectiveness as compared with that of nicotine products approved as smoking-cessation treatments.

METHODS

We randomly assigned adults attending U.K. National Health Service stop-smoking services to either nicotine-replacement products of their choice, including product combinations, provided for up to 3 months, or an e-cigarette starter pack (a second-generation refillable e-cigarette with one bottle of nicotine e-liquid [18 mg per milliliter]), with a recommendation to purchase further e-liquids of the flavor and strength of their choice. Treatment included weekly behavioral support for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained abstinence for 1 year, which was validated biochemically at the final visit. Participants who were lost to follow-up or did not provide biochemical validation were considered to not be abstinent. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported treatment usage and respiratory symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 886 participants underwent randomization. The 1-year abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group, as compared with 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 2.58; P<0.001). Among participants with 1-year abstinence, those in the e-cigarette group were more likely than those in the nicotine-replacement group to use their assigned product at 52 weeks (80% [63 of 79 participants] vs. 9% [4 of 44 participants]). Overall, throat or mouth irritation was reported more frequently in the e-cigarette group (65.3%, vs. 51.2% in the nicotine-replacement group) and nausea more frequently in the nicotine-replacement group (37.9%, vs. 31.3% in the e-cigarette group). The e-cigarette group reported greater declines in the incidence of cough and phlegm production from baseline to 52 weeks than did the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk for cough, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9; relative risk for phlegm, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of wheezing or shortness of breath.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarettes were more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy, when both products were accompanied by behavioral support. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and Cancer Research UK; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60477608.)