Dataset Information

Incidence of Cigarette Smoking Relapse Among Individuals Who Switched to e-Cigarettes or Other Tobacco Products.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although e-cigarettes are not approved as a cessation device, many who smoke believe that e-cigarettes will help them quit cigarette smoking successfully.

Objective

To assess whether people who recently quit smoking and who had switched to e-cigarettes or another tobacco product were less likely to relapse to cigarette smoking compared with those who remained tobacco free.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study analyzed a nationally representative sample of US households that participated in 4 waves of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (conducted 2013 through 2017), combining 2 independent cohorts each with 3 annual surveys. Eligible participants were individuals who smoked at baseline, had recently quit at the first follow-up, and completed the second follow-up survey.

Exposures

Use of e-cigarettes or alternate tobacco products at follow-up 1 after recently quitting smoking.

Main outcomes and measures

Weighted percentage of participants with over 12 months abstinence by follow-up 2.

Results

Of a total of 13 604 participants who smoked cigarettes at baseline, 9.4% (95% CI, 8.7%-10.0%) recently had quit smoking (mean age, 41.9; 95% CI, 39.7-46.6 years; 641 [43.2%] women) Of these, 22.8% (95% CI, 19.7%-26.0%) had switched to e-cigarettes, with 17.6% (95% CI, 14.8%-20.5%) using them daily. A total of 37.1% (95% CI, 33.7%-40.4%) used a noncigarette tobacco product and 62.9% (95% CI, 59.6%-66.3%) were tobacco free. Rates of switching to e-cigarettes were highest for those who were in the top tertile of tobacco dependence (31.3%; 95% CI, 25.0%-37.7%), were non-Hispanic White (26.4%; 95% CI, 22.3%-30.4%), and had higher incomes (annual income ≥$35 000, 27.5%; 95% CI, 22.5%-32.4% vs <$35 000, 19.3%; 95% CI, 16.3%-22.3%). At follow-up 2, unadjusted relapse rates were similar among those who switched to different tobacco products (for any tobacco product: successfully quit, 41.5%; 95% CI, 36.2%-46.9%; relapsed with significant requit, 17.0%; 95% CI, 12.4%-21.6%; currently smoking, 36.2%; 95% CI, 30.9%-41.4%). Controlled for potential confounders, switching to any tobacco product was associated with higher relapse rate than being tobacco free (adjusted risk difference, 8.5%; 95% CI, 0.3%-16.6%). Estimates for those who switched to e-cigarettes, whether daily or not, were not significant. While individuals who switched from cigarettes to e-cigarettes were more likely to relapse, they appeared more likely to requit and be abstinent for 3 months at follow-up 2 (17.0%; 95% CI, 12.4%-21.6% vs 10.4%; 95% CI, 8.0%-12.9%).

Conclusions and relevance

This large US nationally representative study does not support the hypothesis that switching to e-cigarettes will prevent relapse to cigarette smoking.

SUBMITTER: Pierce JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8527352 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWithin tobacco prevention programming, it is useful to identify youth that are at risk for experimenting with various tobacco products and e-cigarettes. The susceptibility to smoking construct is a simple method to identify never-smoking students that are less committed to remaining smoke-free. However, the predictive validity of this construct has not been tested within the Canadian context or for the use of other tobacco products and e-cigarettes.MethodsThis study used a large, longitudinal sample of secondary school students that reported never using tobacco cigarettes and noncurrent use of alternative tobacco products or e-cigarettes at baseline in Ontario, Canada. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the susceptibility construct for predicting tobacco cigarette, e-cigarette, cigarillo or little cigar, cigar, hookah, and smokeless tobacco use 1 and 2 years after baseline measurement were calculated.ResultsAt baseline, 29.4% of the sample was susceptible to future tobacco product or e-cigarette use. The sensitivity of the construct ranged from 43.2% (smokeless tobacco) to 59.5% (tobacco cigarettes), the specificity ranged from 70.9% (smokeless tobacco) to 75.9% (tobacco cigarettes), and the positive predictive value ranged from 2.6% (smokeless tobacco) to 32.2% (tobacco cigarettes). Similar values were calculated for each measure of the susceptibility construct.ConclusionsA significant number of youth that did not currently use tobacco products or e-cigarettes at baseline reported using tobacco products and e-cigarettes over a 2-year follow-up period. The predictive validity of the susceptibility construct was high and the construct can be used to predict other tobacco product and e-cigarette use among youth.ImplicationsThis study presents the predictive validity of the susceptibility construct for the use of tobacco cigarettes among secondary school students in Ontario, Canada. It also presents a novel use of the susceptibility construct for predicting the use of e-cigarettes, cigarillos or little cigars, cigars, hookah, and smokeless tobacco among secondary school students in Ontario, Canada.

Project description:BackgroundThere is considerable debate about the benefits and risks of electronic cigarettes (ECs). To better understand the risk-benefit ratio of ECs, more information is needed about net nicotine consumption and toxicant exposure of cigarette smokers switching to ECs.MethodsForty cigarette smokers (?1 year of smoking) interested in switching to ECs but not necessarily quitting smoking were enrolled in a 4-week observational study and provided an e-Go C non-variable battery and refillable atomizers and choice of eight flavors in 12 or 24 mg nicotine dosage. Measurement of urinary cotinine (metabolite of nicotine), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL; a pulmonary carcinogen), and eight volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are toxic tobacco smoke constituents was conducted at baseline and week 4.ResultsAll participants with follow-up data (92.5%) reported using the study EC. Of the 40 smokers, 16 reported no cigarettes at week 2 (40%) and six continued to report no cigarettes at week 4 (15%). Change in nicotine intake over the 4 weeks was non-significant (p = .90). Carbon monoxide (p < .001), NNAL (p < .01) and metabolites of benzene (p < .01) and acrylonitrile (p = .001) were significantly decreased in the study sample. Smokers switching exclusively to ECs for at least half of the study period demonstrated significant reductions in metabolites of ethylene oxide (p = .03) and acrylamide (p < .01).ConclusionSmokers using ECs over 4 weeks maintained cotinine levels and experienced significant reductions in carbon monoxide, NNAL, and two out of eight measured VOC metabolites. Those who switched exclusively to ECs for at least half of the study period significantly reduced two additional VOCs.ImplicationsThis study extends current literature by measuring change in smoking dependence and disease-associated biomarkers, NNAL and a panel of eight common VOCs that are toxic tobacco smoke constituents in smokers who switch to ECs. The findings support the idea of harm reduction, however some levels of toxicant exposure are still of clinical concern, particularly for dual users. Extrapolation of these results must be careful to separate the different toxic exposure results for exclusive switchers versus dual cigarette + EC users, and not to equate harm reduction with the idea that using ECs is harmless.