Expert Panel Unclear on Whether E-Cigarettes Help Smokers Quit

[Hydroscopic]

Expert Panel Unclear on Whether E-Cigarettes Help Smokers Quit via nih.gov & HealthDay

I'm curious as to why the original author didn't link to the actual draft especially when it is open to comments until the first. - It is a 197 page report. The PDF has 204 pages.

I'm not going to give an opinion beyond that because I've been reading the PDF and I'm nitpicking about the HealthDay article wording and interpretation in regard to research, versus the wording in the actual draft about the limitations of their review. I'll let someone else lead the discussion.

Link to Draft Recommendation via UPSTF:
Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults and Pregnant Women: Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Interventions

If you are wondering which ENDS studies they viewed, it is on pages 193-196. (PDF: 200 - 203)

 

[DC2]

If anyone is unclear as to whether or not E-Cigarettes help smokers quit...
Then they are not experts in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Zebra Puzzle]

This so called "expert panel" is just NRT peddlers:
www.einnews .com/pr_news/263747599/tobacco-cessation-again-receives-a-grade-from-us-preventive-services-task-force

 

[Lessifer]

I still don't understand why this is even a question that needs to be answered. To my knowledge, in the US, no e-cigarettes are marketed as smoking cessation aids. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, and even some scientific studies suggesting that it does help, but that's not how it's being marketed. Some people say that lollipops can help you quit smoking, are there panels that investigate the effectiveness of lollipops as smoking cessation aids so that they can be sold as candy?

 

[Hydroscopic]

It isn't a question. Just that the author tried to bring up the question again. The "panel" are reviewers of reviews. The author of HealthDay focused on ENDS in the headline when the bulk of the draft is about other methods and NRTs.

Use the cheat-sheet the PDF by using the PDF search feature with an "ENDS" query; it is plainly stated in the abstract that there is 'limited data' and in the Appendix with the references/sources supplied that the 'limited data' is because research had not been verified since 2013 in some instances or has a future completion date.

It wasn't a matter of 'not having "good" studies' more than it was unverified studies and incomplete studies. - Only one out of ten was completed and verified that was run out of Italy. It showed that there was potential.

The draft should cite that the 'limited data' is directly because of the unverified and ongoing studies.

I'd like to know if someone 'in the field' can make better sense of the studies cited.
PDF has the information on the ten studies and their respective sources in Appendix G - Table 2.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The DHHS task force draft recommendation falsely claims “evidence is insufficient to recommend” vapor products for smoking cessation, recommends all doctors discourage adult smokers from vaping, and give them Big Pharma’s less-than-effective nicotine gums, lozenges and patches, and deceitfully claims “tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of disease and death” (it’s cigarette smoking)

Importantly, the public comment period is open until June 1, 2015 (to submit comments criticizing the Big Pharma hawking recommendations).
Draft Recommendation Statement: Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults and Pregnant Women: Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Interventions - US Preventive Services Task Force
Draft Evidence Review: Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults and Pregnant Women: Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Interventions - US Preventive Services Task Force
Home - US Preventive Services Task Force


Another study came out touting that "experts" evaluated e-cig policies, but most of the so-called “experts” in Switzerland were labelled "experts" specifically because they train others to hawk Big Pharma products for smoking cessation.
Experts’ consensus on use of electronic cigarettes: a Delphi survey from Switzerland
Experts’ consensus on use of electronic cigarettes: a Delphi survey from Switzerland -- Blaser and Cornuz 5 (4) -- BMJ Open

While its nice they urged the Swiss government to repeal its absurd nicotine e-cig ban, they also recommended banning vaping in workplaces and taxing vapor products.

 

[this is my name]

To my knowledge, in the US, no e-cigarettes are marketed as smoking cessation aids. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, and even some scientific studies suggesting that it does help, but that's not how it's being marketed.

Maybe the manufacturers aren't marketing that way, but it seems that all my local vape shops that do advertise are saying things like "stop smoking and start vaping today" and "no tar, no smoke, vape anywhere"
Maybe they hear stuff like that and get their collective 'panties in a bunch'....

 

[Lessifer]

Maybe the manufacturers aren't marketing that way, but it seems that all my local vape shops that do advertise are saying things like "stop smoking and start vaping today" and "no tar, no smoke, vape anywhere"
Maybe they hear stuff like that and get their collective 'panties in a bunch'....

Well, they can't have their cake and eat it too. Either vaping is a tobacco product, and therefore by definition NOT a tobacco cessation product, or it isn't. If they want to agree that it isn't, then we can talk about it's usefulness as a cessation technique, but I would suggest only along the lines that we discuss hypnotism as a cessation technique. It might work, it might not, but if you want to try it, go ahead.

 

[caramel]

Either vaping is a tobacco product, and therefore by definition NOT a tobacco cessation product, or it isn't.

Ah, the FDA deeming.... but they only deemed "nicotine" as a "tobacco product", and only when it is extracted from tobacco.....

If you accept their deeming, then vaping non-nic or non-tobacco-nic are by definition NOT tobacco products.

If you don't accept their deeming as making sense, then vaping (in any form that does not directly use tobacco leaves) is not a tobacco product.

 

[caramel]

As for the FDA deeming, one may notice that tobacco fields are producing and releasing huge quantities of oxygen, through the photosynthesis process. According to FDA reasoning, this particular oxygen is a tobacco product and it would be only fair to be regulated accordingly. At a minimum, minors should be banned from inhaling it.

 

[Lessifer]

I didn't say it made sense, but they already tried to regulate as cessation device, they lost that battle. Now they're trying from the tobacco product angle, which negates the cessation device.

 

[DrMA]

CLearly, the USPSTF document is nothing more than a Pharma marketing leaflet for useless and/or dangerous "cessation" drugs supported by propaganda and innuendo from the Tobacco Control Industry.

All vapers should comment and condemn their science denial.

 

[caramel]

I didn't say it made sense, but they already tried to regulate as cessation device, they lost that battle. Now they're trying from the tobacco product angle, which negates the cessation device.

Well it all depends on the particular product you make out of this tobacco. I could make a roof to a shack out of tobacco leaves, how exactly should it be regulated? I could extract some substances to be used as a textile dye, how should they be regulated? I could make out a dust to be used as mild pesticide for delicate indoor plants, how should it be regulated?

It's all in the purpose of the product. But in their attempt to regulate vaping in the most restrictive way possible, FDA is going to great lengths into not making sense.

 

[Jman8]

Well it all depends on the particular product you make out of this tobacco. I could make a roof to a shack out of tobacco leaves, how exactly should it be regulated? I could extract some substances to be used as a textile dye, how should they be regulated? I could make out a dust to be used as mild pesticide for delicate indoor plants, how should it be regulated?

I noticed with the bolded words, you misspelled "why" 3 times.

Judge Leon opened the door to "could be regulated like a tobacco product." I don't think he meant as a tobacco product, but the key item here (from FDA perspective) is that it must be regulated. And it's not like they wanted to regulate as tobacco product. Who knows where our history with vaping would be if in 2009 things went the other way (regulated as a drug)?

If not deemed (and regulated) as a tobacco product, then that wouldn't mean that TPTB are going to forego regulations. Heck, some vapers seem to really want regulations, and that 'reasonable regulations' can't come soon enough.

I think tobacco product is legit, but also messed up, though mostly because stigma and science around tobacco product leaves a lot to be desired from rational thinking. So, it is around 75% legit, and 25% messed up, IMO.

The reason why I think any vaper thinks vaping should be regulated, is it could be a very dangerous product if not regulated. Yet, I would argue (and bet) that it will be a more dangerous product once (heavily) regulated. So, then the question comes back to, "why should it be regulated?"

 

[choochoogranny]

It is beyond my comprehension how anyone can make regulations without knowing...... in depth.... what the product is. Why don't they have sitting on the Board people who have first hand experience of being smokers and now vapers, and "real" experts in the testing and science of vaping?

 

[caramel]

Everything is regulated, at least from a liability and tax perspective. So the question is how. General consumer products? Or a more specific category?

 

[Jman8]

Everything is regulated, at least from a liability and tax perspective. So the question is how. General consumer products? Or a more specific category?

If it has tobacco leaves / nicotine in it, and you ingest it in some fashion, then regulating as a tobacco product, makes (75%) sense. Unless you get exemption from TPTB that say this is not that type of product and is, instead, a drug / health product specifically designed to get you off of tobacco products. Which, that last part, makes about 50% sense to me, but is what it is.

 

[Lessifer]

It is beyond my comprehension how anyone can make regulations without knowing...... in depth.... what the product is. Why don't they have sitting on the Board people who have first hand experience of being smokers and now vapers, and "real" experts in the testing and science of vaping?

Probably because you misunderstand the purpose of regulations. They are not expressly to make the product safer or more consumer friendly, they are to make the product more manageable. Meaning, ensuring there are always hoops to jump through, and fees to pay, and a clear chain of liability.

 

[choochoogranny]

So, it comes down to lawyer stuff again?! Man, are they making the world too complicated! Thank you, Lessifer, for explaining that to me......I'm not sure how I should feel about this new information.

 

[OldBatty]

I didn't say it made sense, but they already tried to regulate as cessation device, they lost that battle. Now they're trying from the tobacco product angle, which negates the cessation device.

OK, vape gear is not a 'cessation device' so now we need to lobby for sin tax to be proportional to the sin (harm) involved. Since at its worst vaping is 5% as harmful as tobacco then the 'sin taxes' should be 5% (or less) than tobacco tax. Untested 'foreign', or USA 'bath tub' E-juice gets a 5% sin tax. BT or deep pocket independent 'Indiana and ISO 9001 approved' E-juice gets a 1% of tobacco tax.

Fair is fair, works for me!