Study: E-cigarettes work as well as patches to help smokers quit

[MrsAngelD]

Study: E-cigarettes work as well as patches to help smokers quit | Al Jazeera America

Smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes to try to kick their habit are at least as likely as users of nicotine patches to succeed in quitting or cutting back, according to research published Sunday in the British medical journal The Lancet.

In the study, researchers compared electronic, or e-cigarettes, with the more standard nicotine replacement therapy patches. Levels of success were comparable, but e-cigarettes -- whose effects are a subject of intense debate among health experts -- were found to be more likely to help smokers who had previously failed to cut the amount of tobacco they use.


The study was the first to assess whether e-cigarettes are more or less effective than nicotine patches -- already recognized as useful in helping people quit.


"While our results don't show any clear-cut differences... in terms of quit success after six months, it certainly seems that e-cigarettes were more effective in helping smokers who didn't quit to cut down," said Chris Bullen of New Zealand's University of Auckland, who led the study.


"It's also interesting that the people who took part in our study seemed to be much more enthusiastic about e-cigarettes than patches, as evidenced by the far greater proportion of people... who said they'd recommend them to family or friends."


The FDA does not regulate e-cigarettes, though the agency announced in 2011 that it plans to regulate them as tobacco products rather than drug delivery devices, putting them in the same category as traditional cigarettes.


Bullen's research team recruited 657 smokers who wanted to quit smoking and divided them into three groups.


They gave 292 of them a 13 weeks' supply of commercially available e-cigarettes, each of which contained around 16mg of nicotine. The same number of participants got 13 weeks of nicotine patches, and the remaining 73 got placebo e-cigarettes containing no nicotine.


At the end of the six-month study, 5.7 percent of participants had managed to completely stop smoking for that period.


Bullen said that while the proportion of participants who quit was highest in the e-cigarettes group -- at 7.3 percent compared to 5.8 percent on nicotine patches and 4.1 percent on placebo -- the differences were not statistically significant, so the results were that the two products were comparable.


The study also found that among those who had not managed to quit, cigarette consumption was markedly more reduced in the nicotine e-cigarettes group, compared to both other groups.


Some 57 percent of people using e-cigarettes had cut their daily number of cigarettes smoked by at least half after six months, compared to just over 40 percent of the patches group.


Exciting or dangerous?


Ann McNeill, a professor of tobacco addiction at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, said the findings should persuade health experts to embrace e-cigarettes as a useful weapon in the battle against smoking.


"Electronic cigarettes are the most exciting new development in tobacco control over the last few decades as we have witnessed a rapid uptake of these much less harmful products by smokers," she said in an emailed comment.


"The popularity of e-cigarettes suggests that we now have a product that can compete with cigarettes, thus heralding the first real possibility that cigarette smoking could be phased out."


Despite the findings, some experts still fear e-cigarettes may be a "gateway" to nicotine addiction and tobacco smoking.


The U.S. Centers for Disease Control released a study on Saturday examining e-cigarette usage among children, saying that it had doubled from 2011 to 2012 and that it may be a gateway to regular smoking. More than 20 states have banned store sales of e-cigarettes to minors.


Regardless of the e-cigarette debate, regular smoking continues to kill half of all those who indulge in it.


Tobacco is responsible for 6 million deaths a year and the World Health Organization estimate that number could rise beyond 8 million by 2030.


As well as causing lung cancer and other chronic respiratory conditions, smoking is also a major contributor to cardiovascular diseases, the world's number-one killer.

 

[Vocalek]

"It's also interesting that the people who took part in our study seemed to be much more enthusiastic about e-cigarettes than patches, as evidenced by the far greater proportion of people... who said they'd recommend them to family or friends."

Yup. Been looking all over for the NPF, NGF, and NLF and can't find those forums. Don't those folks ever socialize? Trade tips?

 

[onjre]

This is good news but of course 16gm juice is not comparable to analogs in my opinion. You need 24mg with an assortment of flavors so you can actually get at least one you like as well as a decent e-cig. I'm not talking about cigarette look-a-likes. I didn't "firmly" quit until I had an eGo passthrough. I mean, I technically quit, but the performance was sub par and sometimes I'd have an analog to get me back to where my e-cig was charged again (once or twice a month). If the researcher is not a vaper he's completely lost in the world of e-cigs and the chances of him/her selecting an analog-competitive equivalent is not good. I bet the numbers would have been much more staggering in favor of e-cigs had they gotten some vaper input.

 

[Vocalek]

I've been corresponding with the author, Chris Bullen, and he acknowledges that the equipment left a lot to be desired. But the project took several years to complete, and he said that they went with the best available at the time.

Before my retirement, I worked for a non-profit scientific research organization, where I learned a lot about how scientific research is conducted.

In reaction to scientific research in the past that was more concerned with the ends than the means (e.g., look up Tuskegee syphilis experiment), today research on human subjects is much more carefully controlled. Each institution, whether that be a university or private company such as my former employer, forms one or more Institutional Review Boards (IRB). The IRBs must review the protocol (the plan of what will be done) for the experiment to make sure that carrying out the plans won't endanger the subjects. Did you know that IRB approval is required even if all you plan to do is administer a survey? They take protection of human subjects very seriously these days.

Included in the protocol is describing the information that will be given to subjects to inform them of any potential risks to their health and/or their lives should they choose to participate. Sometimes it takes several iterations of Informed Consent forms before the IRB signs off on the form that will be used. Then comes the recruitment of subjects. Depending on the protocol, they may wait to begin the actual experiment until a minimum number of subjects have signed up.

The process described above is time-consuming. And all of this must be done before the experimentation itself begins.

 

[Petrodus]

If the researcher is not a vaper he's completely lost in the world of e-cigs and the chances of him/her selecting an analog-competitive equivalent is not good. I bet the numbers would have been much more staggering in favor of e-cigs had they gotten some vaper input.

E-cigarette research and studies are basically flawed
because those conducting the research and studies ... basically, haven't got a clue
because they are not vapers. I pay little to no attention to such research and studies.

Yeah, I know ...
We should be appreciative of any crumbs thrown our way
and need research studies to help us in the war against e-cigarettes.

Oh, by the way ...
E-cigarettes are a Smoking Alternative and not a Smoking Cessation devise.
However, the world has decided to refer to them as a Smoking Cessation device.

 

[onjre]

I've been corresponding with the author, Chris Bullen, and he acknowledges that the equipment left a lot to be desired. But the project took several years to complete, and he said that they went with the best available at the time.

Before my retirement, I worked for a non-profit scientific research organization, where I learned a lot about how scientific research is conducted.

In reaction to scientific research in the past that was more concerned with the ends than the means (e.g., look up Tuskegee syphilis experiment), today research on human subjects is much more carefully controlled. Each institution, whether that be a university or private company such as my former employer, forms one or more Institutional Review Boards (IRB). The IRBs must review the protocol (the plan of what will be done) for the experiment to make sure that carrying out the plans won't endanger the subjects. Did you know that IRB approval is required even if all you plan to do is administer a survey? They take protection of human subjects very seriously these days.

Included in the protocol is describing the information that will be given to subjects to inform them of any potential risks to their health and/or their lives should they choose to participate. Sometimes it takes several iterations of Informed Consent forms before the IRB signs off on the form that will be used. Then comes the recruitment of subjects. Depending on the protocol, they may wait to begin the actual experiment until a minimum number of subjects have signed up.

The process described above is time-consuming. And all of this must be done before the experimentation itself begins.

I hadn't thought about this but you make some good points. I also am a researcher but I deal strictly with materials experiments (i.e. no human test subjects). I can't imagine the headache it would be to try to get some of the strange looking mods through to a human test subject much less an assortment of different options for them to try especially when these things are being claimed to be (in some places) MORE harmful than cigarettes. I suddenly realize how straight forward my research is. If I want to try something I just go do it and see what happens and then write a paper about it.