Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: What's the evidence?

828 views

Published on

Health Evidence hosted a 90 minute webinar examining the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Muhannad Malas and Robert Schwartz led the session and presented findings from their recent review:

Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, Minichiello A, Lightfoot C, Noormohamed A, et al. (2016). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: A systematic review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 18(10), 1926-1936.
http://healthevidence.org/view-article.aspx?a=electronic-cigarettes-smoking-cessation-systematic-review-29830

Cigarette smoking is among the top causes of preventable death and disease. Electronic cigarettes have been increasing in popularity among smokers who report using them for quitting or reducing smoking. This review examines the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes as cessation aids. Sixty two articles, including RCTs, experimental, longitudinal and cross sectional studies are included in this review. Findings suggest there is inconclusive evidence due to low quality of research. This webinar provides a comprehensive overview of current literature examining the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Published in: Healthcare
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: What's the evidence?

  1. 1. Welcome! Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: What's the evidence? You will be placed on hold until the webinar begins. The webinar will begin shortly, please remain on the line.
  2. 2. Poll Questions: Consent • Participation in the webinar poll questions is voluntary • Names are not recorded and persons will not be identified in any way • Participation in the anonymous polling questions is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate Benefits: • Results inform improvement of the current and future webinars • Enable engagement; stimulate discussion. This session is intended for professional development. Some data may be used for program evaluation and research purposes (e.g., exploring opinion change) • Results may also be used to inform the production of systematic reviews and overviews Risks: None beyond day-to-day living
  3. 3. After Today • The PowerPoint presentation and audio recording will be made available • These resources are available at: – PowerPoint: http:// www.slideshare.net/HealthEvidence – Audio Recording: https://www.youtube.com/user/healthevidence/vide 3
  4. 4. What’s the evidence? Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, Minichiello A, Lightfoot C, Noormohamed A, et al. (2016). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: A systematic review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 18(10), 1926-1936. http://www.healthevidence.org/view-article.aspx? a=electronic-cigarettes-smoking-cessation-systematic- review-29830
  5. 5. • Use CHAT to post comments / questions during the webinar – ‘Send’ questions to All (not privately to ‘Host’) • Connection issues – Recommend using a wired Internet connection (vs. wireless) • WebEx 24/7 help line – 1-866-229-3239 Participant Side Panel in WebEx Housekeeping
  6. 6. Housekeeping (cont’d) • Audio – Listen through your speakers – Go to ‘Communicate > Audio Broadcast’ • WebEx 24/7 help line – 1-866-229-3239
  7. 7. Poll Question #1 How many people are watching today’s session with you? A.Just me B.2-3 C.4-5 D.6-10 E.>10
  8. 8. The Health Evidence™ Team Maureen Dobbins Scientific Director Heather Husson Manager Susannah Watson Project Coordinator Students: Emily Belita (PhD candidate) Jennifer Yost Assistant Professor Olivia Marquez Research Coordinator Emily Sully Research Assistant Liz Kamler Research Assistant Zhi (Vivian) Chen Research Assistant Research Assistants: Lina Sherazy Claire Howarth Rawan Farran
  9. 9. What is www.healthevidence.org? Evidence Decision Making inform
  10. 10. Why use www.healthevidence.org? 1. Saves you time 2. Relevant & current evidence 3. Transparent process 4. Supports for EIDM available 5. Easy to use
  11. 11. A Model for Evidence- Informed Decision Making National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health (Fact Sheet). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf]
  12. 12. Stages in the process of Evidence- Informed Public Health National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Evidence-Informed Public Health. [http://www.nccmt.ca/eiph/index-eng.html]
  13. 13. Poll Question #2 Have you heard of PICO(S) before? A.Yes B.No
  14. 14. Searchable Questions Think “PICOS” 1.Population (situation) 2.Intervention (exposure) 3.Comparison (other group) 4.Outcomes 5.Setting
  15. 15. How often do you use Systematic Reviews to inform a program/services? A.Always B.Often C.Sometimes D.Never E.I don’t know what a systematic review is Poll Question #3
  16. 16. Muhannad Malas MPH, Toxics Program Manager, Environmental Defence Robert Schwartz PhD, Professor, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
  17. 17. What are e-cigarettes?
  18. 18. Battery powered devices that are used to heat and vaporize a solution. This solution contains:  Propylene glycol  Flavourings  Nicotine (sometimes) E-cigarettes Defined
  19. 19. RECIG: RESEARCH ON E- CIGARETTES AN ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH & LONG-TERM CARE, HEALTH SYSTEM RESEARCH FUND STUDY
  20. 20. RECIG INVESTIGATOR TEAM • Robert Schwartz (PI), OTRU, UoT • Laurie Zawertailo (PI), CAMH • Thomas Eissenberg, Virginia Commonwealth University • Roberta Ferrence, OTRU, UoT • Shawn O’Connor, OTRU, UoT • Peter Selby, CAMH • Melodie Tilson, NSRA
  21. 21. RECIG Research Team • Emily Di Sante • Bo Zhang • Diane Van Abbe • Jaklyn Andrews • Muhannad Malas • Aliya Noormohamed • Jan vander Tempel • Ginnie Ng • Alexa Minichiello
  22. 22. RECIG Knowledge Exchange Advisory Committee Irmajean Bajnok, RNAO Claire Harvey, TPH Jennifer McFarlane, NW TCAN Michael Perley, OCAT Rowena Pinto, CCS Michael Stanbrook, UHN Andrea Stevens Lavigne, OLA Melodie Tilson, SHAF
  23. 23. Expert Panel • Thomas Eissenberg, Virginia Commonwealth University (Chair) • Linda Bauld, University of Stirling • Mirjana Djordjevic, National Cancer Institute • Maciej Goniewicz, Roswell Park Cancer Institute • Alan Shihadeh, American University of Beirut
  24. 24. Research Questions 1. Determine the prevalence of e-cigarette use, especially among youth 2. Determine the health effects of e-cigarette use 3. Determine the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid 4. Determine the relationship between e- cigarette use and uptake of tobacco smoking
  25. 25. RECIG Studies • Comprehensive, realist-informed knowledge synthesis • Analysis of data from existing surveys • Longitudinal panel of adult smokers and recent smokers (19 years and over) • Surveys and in-depth interviews with youth and young adults (15-29 years of age)
  26. 26. RECIG Studies (cont’d) • Social media analysis of e-cigarette message exposure, reach and content • Randomized clinical trial comparing smoking cessation effectiveness of e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy products • Biomarker study of e-cigarette users to measure concentrations of nicotine and other chemicals
  27. 27. International, Multidisciplinary Expert Panel
  28. 28. EFFECTIVENESS AS A CESSATION AID
  29. 29. Knowledge Synthesis Search Strategy •Original data of all types including cross-sectional surveys •Peer-reviewed literature sources – PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, ROVER, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and the OTRU library catalogue •Grey literature sources – Grey Matters, OAIster, Open Grey, the NYAM website, the Legacy Library, BIOSIS Previews, Conference Papers Index, ISI Proceedings, Dissertation Abstracts International, CIHI, and Grey Net International. •Exclusion by 2 reviewers (blind to each other)
  30. 30. Knowledge Synthesis (2) Quality Assessment •Developed a quality assessment form that accommodated the methodological heterogeneity of the literature; informed by: – QualSys tool (2004) and Cochrane handbook criteria. – 16 indicators including design, sample representativeness, instrument validity/reliability, statistical analysis, reflexivity, and risk of bias. – Summary score values: weak (0.00 – 0.49), moderate (0.50 – 0.74), or strong (0.75 – 1.00). •Conflict of Interest was assessed separately.
  31. 31. Records identified through database and grey literature searches (N = 2855) Eligibility Screening Synthesis&Reporting Identification Records screened for eligibility (N = 1552) Articles extracted (N = 504) Studies included in synthesis (504) Quality Assessment Items categorized according to data quality (Nweak = 37) (Nmoderate = 23) (Nstrong = 2) Data Extraction Duplicates removed (N= 1303) Records excluded (N = 1048) Articles on e-cigarettes and smoking cessation (N =62)
  32. 32. GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the overall quality of evidence per outcome
  33. 33. Results Primary outcomes: abstinence and reduction Secondary outcomes: cravings and withdrawal symptoms
  34. 34. GRADE RESULTS • The state of the evidence about the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid is currently assessed as very low to low, due primarily to methodological weaknesses of current studies • Evidence of a positive association between e- cigarette use and smoking reduction is slightly better but also weak as indicated by a GRADE assessment of low to moderate
  35. 35. Secondary Outcomes: Cravings and Withdrawal Symptoms • 9 out of 10 moderate or strong studies demonstrated positive results. • Overall quality of evidence was rated as low using the GRADE approach.
  36. 36. Conclusions • Evidence for the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid is inconclusive. – Too much uncontrolled variation. – Many important variables are not accounted for. – External validity issues. • However, the direction of the effect seems to be positive in the majority of moderate and strong studies. • Newer-generation devices can be more useful.
  37. 37. ARE E-CIGARETTES EFFECTIVE CESSATION AIDS? Conclusively: The evidence to date is inconclusive!
  38. 38. E-Cigarettes for Cessation: State of Knowledge Respected scholars diverge in drawing conclusions from same studies Most agree: insufficient high quality studies Emerging evidence suggests that the answer is nuanced
  39. 39. Misinformation and Interpretation Reporting from Royal College of Physicians Report: “Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction”
  40. 40. What the Press Release said e-cigarettes are likely to be beneficial to UK public health. Smokers can therefore be reassured and encouraged to use them, and the public can be reassured that e-cigarettes are much safer than smoking.
  41. 41. What the Report Summary Says • E-cigarettes appear to be effective when used by smokers as an aid to quitting smoking. • E-cigarettes are not currently made to medicines standards and are probably more hazardous than NRT. • It is important to promote the use of e- cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK.
  42. 42. What the Report itself says (p. 85) • Experience with NRT suggests that e- cigarette use is likely to increase the proportion of smokers making a quit attempt, but appropriate evidence on this effect is not yet available. • Observational population-level evidence indicates more likely to make an attempt to stop smoking but it is not yet clear whether they are more likely to succeed 119,120
  43. 43. Nuanced Cessation Aid Findings Some smokers using certain kinds of e- cigarettes in certain ways may quit smoking Some smokers may become dual users which may or may not lead to cessation By far, most smokers who try, do not become vapers and do not quit
  44. 44. When do they work for cessation? Some studies (including our own) suggest: – Daily vaping – Nicotine e-cigarettes – Vaping in order to quit smoking
  45. 45. HEALTH EFFECTS
  46. 46. Bottom Line Evidence of potential health effects is sufficient to suggest that anybody who is not a current smoker of tobacco cigarettes should not vape electronic cigarettes
  47. 47. Health Effects Challenge No standards for acceptable levels of toxicants in vapours ingested into the lungs
  48. 48. Nuanced Findings Range of devices that vary widely in liquids, cartridges, heating mechanisms. Many potential effects not yet studied Some e-cigarettes can deliver as much nicotine in 10 puffs as a regular cigarette For youth, nicotine can affect brain development
  49. 49. Effects of frequent long-term exposure not known
  50. 50. Constituents: In e-liquids and vapor • Carbonyls, tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), and impurities were frequently detected in e-liquids at low levels • Low levels of carbonyls, VOCs, TSNAs, metals, impurities, and particulate matter have been found in e-cigarette vapor
  51. 51. Passive Exposure • E-cigarette use may result in low levels of passive exposure to nicotine, organic compounds, metals, and particulate matter • Particulate matter high in indoor vaping by a large number of people • Lower than cigarettes, but not zero
  52. 52. Cytotoxicity: From e-liquids and vapor • Exposure to e-liquids and vapors result in varying levels of cytotoxicity • E-cigarette vapor may be less cytotoxic compared to cigarette smoke • Nicotine content and flavorings added to e- liquids may contribute to the negative effects on cell viability • Increasing battery output voltage may also contribute to increased cytotoxicity
  53. 53. Health Effect: Respiratory Effects • Some respiratory effects were reported, but there was a large variability in results • Vardavas et al (2012) reported a 16% decrease in FENO after using e-cigarettes for 5 minutes (p=0.005) – Significant increase in overall peripheral airway resistance (p=0.024) • Flouris et al (2013) found no significant differences in FENO after active e-cigarette use (p>0.001) – Neither brief active e-cigarette use nor 1h passive e-cigarette exposure significantly affected the lung function (p>0.001)
  54. 54. Perceived Risks of Using E-Cigarettes Daily (Adults) 22% 34%35%
  55. 55. Problem Perception • What are the real health effects as opposed to the perceived health effects? • Vaping into the lungs perceived per se as problematic? – General public – Tobacco control community • Are sufficient numbers of people that matter sufficiently concerned?
  56. 56. Reframing the Problem
  57. 57. What if e-cigarettes are both a problem and a solution? ECIGs health risks are a problem ECIGs as cessation aid are a solution
  58. 58. Should e-cigarettes be promoted as a cessation aid? YES • Less harm than tobacco • Could work for some as well or better than alternatives • Potentially huge reach NO • Could aid tobacco maintenance • Continues nicotine dependence • Unknown long-term health effects • Normalizes vaping & smoking • Can’t have huge reach without encouraging uptake by non-smokers
  59. 59. Anti-precautionary principle? If ECIGs are less harmful than cigarettes and if ECIGs help some people quit smoking cigarettes …but we don’t know for sure who, when, how… why not err on side of anti-precaution and promote use among smokers?
  60. 60. Research Policy Timelines Research • 2010 – ECIG Issue Identified • Fall 2013 Targeted Research Call • Fall 2014 Research Begins • Winter 2016 Results Policy • 20XX Internal Gov’t policy work • Summer 2014 Ontario Election • Fall 2014 Bill 45 Introduced • Summer 2015 Bill 45 adopted • Winter 2016 Implemented
  61. 61. Policy Options Policy Option Status Regulate to decrease safety and health risks Regulate to assure nicotine delivery Ban all or most flavours Restrict to adults X Regulate promotion X Restrict to current smokers Ban vaping in public places X Restrict sales to licenses vape shops Complete ban on sale / use
  62. 62. Take Home Messages • Non-smokers should not vape • Low levels of toxicants with unknown long-term health effects • Vaping is likely far less harmful than smoking • Some smokers using certain kinds of e- cigarettes in certain ways may quit smoking • Until now, not panacea for helping smokers quit
  63. 63. What next? Regulatory policy could do more to: 1.Prevent non-smokers (primarily youth) from initiating 2.Make e-cigarettes less harmful for smokers 3.Make e-cigarettes more effective cessation aids
  64. 64. What should policymakers do? If health effects are perceived as problem; apply precautionary principle and protect non-smokers, especially youth from initiating If cessation possibilities are perceived as solution to cigarette smoking; apply anti-precaution and promote regulated use for smokers only
  65. 65. A Model for Evidence- Informed Decision Making National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health (Fact Sheet). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf]
  66. 66. Poll Question #6 The information presented today was helpful A.Strongly agree B.Agree C.Neutral D.Disagree E.Strongly disagree
  67. 67. What can I do now? Visit the website; a repository of over 4,800 quality-rated systematic reviews related to the effectiveness of public health interventions. Health Evidence™ is FREE to use. Register to receive monthly tailored registry updates AND monthly newsletter to keep you up to date on upcoming events and public health news. Tell your colleagues about Health Evidence™: helping you use best evidence to inform public health practice, program planning, and policy decisions! Follow us @HealthEvidence on Twitter and receive daily public health review- related Tweets, receive information about our monthly webinars, as well as announcements and events relevant to public health. Encourage your organization to use Health Evidence™ to search for and apply quality-rated review level evidence to inform program planning and policy decisions. Contact us to suggest topics or provide feedback. info@healthevidence.org
  68. 68. Poll Question #7 What are your next steps? [Check all that apply] A.Access the full text systematic review B.Access the quality assessment for the review on www.healthevidence.org C.Consider using the evidence D.Tell a colleague about the evidence
  69. 69. Thank you! Contact us: info@healthevidence.org For a copy of the presentation please visit: http://www.healthevidence.org/webinars.aspx

×