E-Cigarettes vs. Nicotine Therapy to Stop Smoking

E-cigarettes were more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy according to this randomized study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Both must be accompanied by medical and psychological support for optimal results.

Enfermedad pulmonar y cigarrillos electrónicos: Nuevos dispositivos con nuevas enfermedadesWhile e-cigarettes are commonly used as a smoking cessation strategy, evidence is limited regarding their effectiveness as compared with other strategies such as approved nicotine products (chewing gum, candy, patches, etc.) that act as nicotine replacement to help patients stop smoking permanently.

 

A total of 886 participants attending dedicated U.K. stop-smoking services underwent randomization to either nicotine-replacement products (different combinations or presentations) for 3 months or an e-cigarette (a second-generation refillable e-cigarette with one bottle of nicotine e-liquid [18 mg/mL]). Flavor and strength were left to the patients’ choice. Treatment was to be followed for at least 4 weeks.


Read also: E-Cigarettes: No Definitive Evidence on Their Potential Cardiovascular Effect, but Some Suggest Caution.


For both treatment arms, treatment included counseling follow-up for at least 4 weeks.

 

The primary outcome was sustained abstinence for one year, which was validated biochemically at the final follow-up visit. Participants who were lost to follow-up or did not access biochemical validation were considered to not be abstinent.

 

The abstinence rate at one year was 18% in the e-cigarette group vs. 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk [RR]: 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.30 to 2.58; p < 0.001). While the abstinence rate for e-cigarettes almost doubled the rate for nicotine-replacement therapy, 18% is still very low and we should insist so that more patients can quit smoking for good.


Read also: Several Features Define a Hostile Neck in AAA patients, but Only One Makes the Difference.


The most frequently reported events were throat or mouth irritation for the e-cigarette group and nausea for the nicotine-replacement group.

 

Symptoms such as cough and phlegm production were also minor in the e-cigarette group.

 

There were no differences between groups in the incidence of bronchospasm or dyspnea.

 

Conclusion

E-cigarettes were more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy when both were accompanied by psychological and medical advice.

 

Original title: A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes Versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy.

Reference: Peter Hajek et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 14;380(7):629-637.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

STEACS and the Use of Bivalirudin vs. Heparin: In Search of BRIGHT-4 Outcomes

Various studies and registries have previously shown the impact of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) complications on the survival of patients with ST-segment elevation acute...

TAVR and Atrial Fibrillation: What Anticoagulants Should We Use?

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in TAVR patients ranges from 15 to 30%, depending on series. This arrhythmia has been associated to higher...

Ultrathin vs Thin-Strut Stents in PCI Patients at High Bleeding Risk

Several in vivo studies have shown that ultrathin stents present lower thrombogenic risk vs. thin-strut stents, which reflects in lower rates of target lesion...

Should We Withdraw Anticoagulation Before TAVR?

Approximately one-third of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have atrial fibrillation and are on oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. This creates a complex...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

TCT 2024 | TRISCEND II

This randomized study included 400 patients; 267 were treated with EVOQUE valve and 133 with optimal medical treatment (OMT). After one-year follow-up, there were no...

TCT 2024 – ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Percutaneous Access Closure Strategies After TAVI

Vascular access complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain common. However, few studies compare vascular access closure methods.  Based on the CHOICE-CLOSURE and MASH...