10.2. SR 09-08-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E-cigarettes: an evidence update 50 depending on the type and frequency of EC used at follow-up: compared to no EC use, non-daily cigalike users were less likely to have quit smoking since baseline, daily cigalike or non-daily tank users were no more or less likely to have quit, and daily tank users were more likely to have quit. Overall, the two studies showed that daily use of EC does not lead to lower cessation, and is associated with making quit attempts, cigarette reduction, and if tank-type EC is used, is associated with smoking cessation. Non-daily use of EC is not associated with quit-related outcomes, and may, if cigalike - type EC are used, be associated with lower cessation. Supporting these findings, using data from a longitudinal population study of smokers in two metropolitan areas in the US, Biener et al., 2015 [44] measured use and intensity of EC use at follow-up in a longitudinal sample of smokers at baseline from two US cities. Biener also found that it was only intensive EC users (used daily for at least one month) that were more likely to quit, less intensive EC users were no more likely to quit than those not using EC. There are limitations with these studies. For example, an unavoidable methodological problem is that only people who currently smoke are included in these studies meaning that smokers who switched completely to EC and stopped smoking are excluded. The efficacy of EC is thus invariably underestimated. A longitudinal telephone survey reported by Al-Delaimy et al., 2015 [50] among a sample of 368 current smokers from California at baseline (2011) investigated the relation between ‘ever have used’ versus ‘never will use’ EC, and making a quit attempt, a 20% reduction in cigarettes per month, and quitting for more than one month at follow - up (2012). Al-Delaimy included smokers at baseline who at both baseline and follow-up reported the same EC status: never will use EC at both baseline and follow-up OR ever have used EC at both baseline and follow-up, excluding anyone who gave different responses. Also excluded were respondents who said they might use EC in the future at baseline or follow-up, and respondents who had never heard of EC, reducing sample size from n=980 to n=368. Al-Delaimy concluded that compared to smokers who reported they never will use EC, respondents who had ever used EC were significantly less likely to have reduced their cigarette consumption and quit at follow-up, with no differences reported of quit attempts at follow-up. This study has serious methodological problems that make its conclusions uninterpretable, first, the measure of EC use is ‘ever use’, which could include even a puff on an EC and second, they applied several exclusion criteria that are not clearly justified. Studies of smokers enrolled in smoking cessation programs Two recent studies have examined the use of EC among smokers enrolled in smoking cessation programmes in longitudinal studies [51, 52]. Pearson et al., 2015 [51] examined the relation between reporting using an EC for quitting at follow-up and