Article de Périodique
Efficacy of electronic cigarettes vs varenicline and nicotine chewing gum as an aid to stop smoking: A randomized clinical trial (2024)
Auteur(s) :
H. X. LIN ;
Z. LIU ;
P. HAJEK ;
W. T. ZHANG ;
Y. WU ;
B. C. ZHU ;
H. H. LIU ;
Q. XIANG ;
Y. ZHANG ;
S. B. LI ;
F. PESOLA ;
Y. Y. WANG
Article en page(s) :
291-299
Refs biblio. :
27
Domaine :
Tabac / Tobacco / e-cigarette
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Thésaurus géographique
CHINE
Thésaurus mots-clés
ETUDE RANDOMISEE
;
E-CIGARETTE
;
VARENICLINE
;
SUBSTITUTS NICOTINIQUES
;
COMPARAISON
;
EFFICACITE
;
TABAC
;
ARRET DU TABAC
;
ABSTINENCE
;
SEVRAGE
;
OBSERVANCE DU TRAITEMENT
;
EFFET SECONDAIRE
Résumé :
Key Points:
Question: How do electronic cigarettes (ECs) as a stop-smoking aid compare with efficacy of varenicline and nicotine chewing gum?
Findings: In this randomized clinical trial including 1068 smokers, ECs were as effective as varenicline and more effective than nicotine chewing gum when all 3 treatments were provided with minimal behavioral support.
Meaning: ECs are an effective option for smokers seeking help with quitting smoking.
Importance: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are often used by smokers as an aid to stopping smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their efficacy compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and no evidence is available on how their efficacy compares with that of varenicline.
Objective: To evaluate whether ECs are superior to NRT and noninferior to varenicline in helping smokers quit.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted at 7 sites in China and including participants who were smoking at least 10 cigarettes per day and motivated to quit, not using stop-smoking medications or EC, and willing to use any of the study products. Participants were first recruited in May 2021, and data analysis was conducted in December 2022.
Interventions: A cartridge-based EC (30 mg/mL nicotine salt for 2 weeks and 50 mg/mL after that), varenicline (0.5 mg, once a day for 3 days; 0.5 mg, twice a day for 4 days; and 1 mg, twice a day, after that), and 2 mg (for smokers of 20 cigarettes per day) nicotine chewing gum, all provided for 12 weeks and accompanied by minimal behavioral support (an invitation to join a self-help internet forum).
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was sustained abstinence from smoking at 6 months as validated by an expired-air carbon monoxide reading (<8 parts per million). Participants lost to follow-up were included as nonabstainers.
Results: Of 1068 participants, 357 (33.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 33.9 (3.1) years. A total of 409 (38.3%), 409 (38.3%), and 250 (23.4%) participants were randomized to the EC, varenicline, and NRT arms, respectively. The 6-month biochemically validated abstinence rates were 15.7% (n = 64), 14.2% (n = 58), and 8.8% (n = 22) in the EC, varenicline, and NRT study arms, respectively. The quit rate in the EC arm was noninferior to the varenicline arm (absolute risk reduction, 1.47%; 95% CI, -1.41% to 4.34%) and higher than in the NRT arm (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.15-3.21). Treatment adherence was similar in all study arms during the initial 3 months, but 257 participants (62.8%) in the EC arm were still using ECs at 6 months, with no further use in the 2 other study arms. The most common adverse reactions were throat irritation (32 [7.8%]) and mouth irritation (28 [6.9%]) in the EC arm, nausea (36 [8.8%]) in the varenicline arm, and throat irritation (20 [8.0%]) and mouth irritation (22 [8.8%]) in the NRT arm. No serious adverse events were recorded.
Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial found that when all treatments were provided with minimal behavior support, the efficacy of EC was noninferior to varenicline and superior to nicotine chewing gum.
Question: How do electronic cigarettes (ECs) as a stop-smoking aid compare with efficacy of varenicline and nicotine chewing gum?
Findings: In this randomized clinical trial including 1068 smokers, ECs were as effective as varenicline and more effective than nicotine chewing gum when all 3 treatments were provided with minimal behavioral support.
Meaning: ECs are an effective option for smokers seeking help with quitting smoking.
Importance: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are often used by smokers as an aid to stopping smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their efficacy compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and no evidence is available on how their efficacy compares with that of varenicline.
Objective: To evaluate whether ECs are superior to NRT and noninferior to varenicline in helping smokers quit.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted at 7 sites in China and including participants who were smoking at least 10 cigarettes per day and motivated to quit, not using stop-smoking medications or EC, and willing to use any of the study products. Participants were first recruited in May 2021, and data analysis was conducted in December 2022.
Interventions: A cartridge-based EC (30 mg/mL nicotine salt for 2 weeks and 50 mg/mL after that), varenicline (0.5 mg, once a day for 3 days; 0.5 mg, twice a day for 4 days; and 1 mg, twice a day, after that), and 2 mg (for smokers of 20 cigarettes per day) nicotine chewing gum, all provided for 12 weeks and accompanied by minimal behavioral support (an invitation to join a self-help internet forum).
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was sustained abstinence from smoking at 6 months as validated by an expired-air carbon monoxide reading (<8 parts per million). Participants lost to follow-up were included as nonabstainers.
Results: Of 1068 participants, 357 (33.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 33.9 (3.1) years. A total of 409 (38.3%), 409 (38.3%), and 250 (23.4%) participants were randomized to the EC, varenicline, and NRT arms, respectively. The 6-month biochemically validated abstinence rates were 15.7% (n = 64), 14.2% (n = 58), and 8.8% (n = 22) in the EC, varenicline, and NRT study arms, respectively. The quit rate in the EC arm was noninferior to the varenicline arm (absolute risk reduction, 1.47%; 95% CI, -1.41% to 4.34%) and higher than in the NRT arm (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.15-3.21). Treatment adherence was similar in all study arms during the initial 3 months, but 257 participants (62.8%) in the EC arm were still using ECs at 6 months, with no further use in the 2 other study arms. The most common adverse reactions were throat irritation (32 [7.8%]) and mouth irritation (28 [6.9%]) in the EC arm, nausea (36 [8.8%]) in the varenicline arm, and throat irritation (20 [8.0%]) and mouth irritation (22 [8.8%]) in the NRT arm. No serious adverse events were recorded.
Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial found that when all treatments were provided with minimal behavior support, the efficacy of EC was noninferior to varenicline and superior to nicotine chewing gum.
Affiliation :
Institute for Global Health and Development, Peking University, Beijing, China