Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMyers Smith, K
dc.contributor.authorPhillips-Waller, A
dc.contributor.authorPesola, F
dc.contributor.authorMcRobbie, H
dc.contributor.authorPrzulj, D
dc.contributor.authorOrzol, M
dc.contributor.authorHajek, P
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-12T12:03:55Z
dc.date.available2021-06-16
dc.date.available2021-07-12T12:03:55Z
dc.date.issued2021-06-29
dc.identifier.citationMyers Smith, K., Phillips-Waller, A., Pesola, F., McRobbie, H., Przulj, D., Orzol, M., and Hajek, P. (2021) E-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement treatment as harm reduction interventions for smokers who find quitting difficult: Randomised controlled trial. Addiction, https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15628en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/73005
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND AND AIMS: The majority of smokers accessing the current best treatments continue to smoke. We aimed to test if e-cigarettes (EC) compared with nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) can help such smokers reduce smoking. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial of EC (n=68) vs NRT (n=67) with 6-month follow-up. SETTING: Stop smoking service in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 135 smokers (median age=40, 51% males) previously unable to stop smoking with conventional treatments. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received either NRT of their choice (8 week supply), or an EC starter pack and instructions to purchase further e-liquids of strength and flavours of their choice themselves. Products were accompanied by minimal behavioural support. MEASUREMENTS: Participants who reported that they stopped smoking or reduced their daily cigarette consumption by at least 50% at six-month follow-up were invited to provide a carbon monoxide (CO) reading. The primary outcome was biochemically validated reduction in smoke intake of at least 50% at 6 months and the main secondary outcome was sustained validated abstinence at 6 months. Drop-outs were included as 'non-reducers'. FINDINGS: Validated smoking reduction (including cessation) was achieved by 26.5% vs 6.0% of participants in the EC and NRT study arms, respectively (relative risk (RR)=4.4, p=0.005, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.6 to 12.4). Sustained validated abstinence rates at 6 months were 19.1% vs 3.0% (RR=6.4, p=0.01, 95%CI: 1.5 to 27.3). Product use was high and equal in both study arms initially, but at 6 months allocated product use was 47% in the EC arm vs 10% in the NRT arm (chi(1)=22.0, p<.001), respectively. Adverse events were minor and infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: In smokers unable to quit using conventional methods, e-cigarettes were more effective than nicotine replacement therapy in facilitating validated long-term smoking reduction and smoking cessation, when limited other support was provided.en_US
dc.languageeng
dc.relation.ispartofAddiction
dc.subjectSmoking cessationen_US
dc.subjecte-cigarettesen_US
dc.subjectharm reductionen_US
dc.subjectnicotine replacement treatmenten_US
dc.subjectrandomised controlled trialen_US
dc.subjecttobacco dependenceen_US
dc.titleE-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement treatment as harm reduction interventions for smokers who find quitting difficult: Randomised controlled trial.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/add.15628
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34187081en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-06-16
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record