|Titre :||Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation [Review] (2021)|
|Auteurs :||J. HARTMANN-BOYCE ; H. McROBBIE ; N. LINDSON ; C. BULLEN ; R. BEGH ; A. THEODOULOU ; C. NOTLEY ; N. A. RIGOTTI ; T. TURNER ; A. R. BUTLER ; T. R. FANSHAWE ; P. HAJEK|
|Type de document :||Article : Périodique|
|Dans :||Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (n°4, 2021)|
|Article en page(s) :||CD010216 ; 218 p.|
|Discipline :||TRA (Traitement et prise en charge / Treatment and care)|
Thésaurus mots-clésARRET DU TABAC ; TABAC ; SEVRAGE ; E-CIGARETTE ; NICOTINE ; EVALUATION ; EFFICACITE ; SECURITE
Background: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.
Objectives: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.
Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.
Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.
Data collection and analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.
There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small.
The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
|Domaine :||Tabac / Tobacco|
|Sous-type de document :||Revue de la littérature / Literature review|
|URL :||Synthèse en français|
|Titre précédent :|
|Titre suivant :|