Abstract

IntroductionTo date, no studies have explored how different regulatory environments may influence the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes (ECs) as a smoking cessation aid.ObjectiveThis study compares the real-world effectiveness of adult smokers using ECs for quitting compared with quitting unassisted or quitting with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and/or prescription medications in two countries with restrictive policies towards ECs (ie, Canada and Australia) versus two countries with less restrictive policies (ie, United States and United Kingdom).MethodsData were drawn from the International Tobacco Control Four Country surveys, from the United States and Canada (2 waves, n = 318 and 380, respectively), the United Kingdom (3 waves, n = 439) and Australia (4 waves, n = 662), collected 2010–2014. Smokers at baseline wave who reported making a quit attempt at follow-up were included. The primary outcome was self-reported abstinence for at least 30 days regardless of smoking status at follow-up assessment. Data across waves were combined and analyzed using generalized estimating equations.ResultsCompared to unassisted quitting (ie, no medications or ECs), smokers who used ECs for quitting from countries with less restrictive EC policy environments were more likely (OR = 1.95, 95%CI = 1.19–3.20, p < .01), whereas smokers who used ECs for quitting from countries with more restrictive EC policies were less likely (OR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.18–0.72, p < .01), to report sustained abstinence for at least 30 days.ConclusionsUse of ECs in the real world during a quit attempt appears only effective for sustaining smoking abstinence in a less restrictive EC environment suggesting that the benefits of ECs for smoking cessation are likely highly dependent on the regulatory environment.ImplicationsWhat this study adds: This is the first study to examine the impact of regulatory environment for ECs on their real-world effectiveness for smoking cessation. This study shows that in a less restrictive EC regulatory environment, use of ECs during a quit attempt facilitates, but in a more restrictive environment, it inhibits, short-term sustained abstinence. The findings underscore the need for careful consideration on how best to regulate this emerging product so that EC benefits for smoking cessation are maximized and its risks to public health are minimized.

Highlights

  • To date, no studies have explored how different regulatory environments may influence the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes (ECs) as a smoking cessation aid

  • Based on a 2014 survey where data on EC use patterns were available in Australia and the United Kingdom, 70.2% of the United Kingdom smokers who made a quit attempt using ECs reported using ECs on a daily basis, 45.5% reported using a tank system and 75.3% reported using ones that contain nicotine as compared to 41.0% of their Australian counterparts

  • In the less restrictive countries—the United States and the United Kingdom, about 58% of the smokers who reported quitting without using any nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), PM, or ECs reported 30-day sustained abstinence as compared to 73% who used ECs to quit, 70% who quit using NRT, 74% who used PM, 68% who used a combination of help and 68% of those who responded “Don’t Know” (DK)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

No studies have explored how different regulatory environments may influence the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes (ECs) as a smoking cessation aid. Objective: This study compares the real-world effectiveness of adult smokers using ECs for quitting compared with quitting unassisted or quitting with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and/ or prescription medications in two countries with restrictive policies towards ECs (ie, Canada and Australia) versus two countries with less restrictive policies (ie, United States and United Kingdom). Results: Compared to unassisted quitting (ie, no medications or ECs), smokers who used ECs for quitting from countries with less restrictive EC policy environments were more likely (OR = 1.95, 95%CI = 1.19–3.20, p < .01), whereas smokers who used ECs for quitting from countries with more restrictive EC policies were less likely (OR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.18–0.72, p < .01), to report sustained abstinence for at least 30 days. Conclusions: Use of ECs in the real world during a quit attempt appears only effective for sustaining smoking abstinence in a less restrictive EC environment suggesting that the benefits of ECs for smoking cessation are likely highly dependent on the regulatory environment. Current evidence suggests that ECs are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, and ECs have shown to improve lung function among smokers in a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT)[9] ECs may not completely be without any risk particular among those with pre-existing health conditions such as cardiovascular disease or cancer.[10,11]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call