E-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy within the UK stop smoking services: The TEC RCT
Hajek, P, Phillips-Waller, A, Przulj, D, Pesola, F, Smith, KM, Bisal, N, Li, J, Parrott, S, Sasieni, P, Dawkins, L, Ross, L, Goniewicz, M, Wu, Q and McRobbie, HJ (2019). E-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy within the UK stop smoking services: The TEC RCT. Health Technology Assessment. 23 (43), pp. vii-81.
|Authors||Hajek, P, Phillips-Waller, A, Przulj, D, Pesola, F, Smith, KM, Bisal, N, Li, J, Parrott, S, Sasieni, P, Dawkins, L, Ross, L, Goniewicz, M, Wu, Q and McRobbie, HJ|
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2019. Background: Over the past few years, a large number of smokers in the UK have stopped smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. So far, UK Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) have been reluctant to include e-cigarettes among their treatment options because data on their efficacy compared with the licensed medications are lacking. Objective: The objective was to compare the efficacy of refillable e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, when accompanied by weekly behavioural support. Design: A randomised controlled trial comparing e-cigarettes and NRT. Setting: Three sites that provide local SSSs. Participants: The participants were 886 smokers seeking help to quit smoking, aged ≥ 18 years, not pregnant or breastfeeding, with no strong preference to use or not to use NRT or e-cigarettes in their quit attempt, and currently not using NRT or e-cigarettes. A total of 886 participants were randomised but two died during the study (one in each study arm) and were not included in the analysis. Interventions: The NRT arm (n = 446) received NRT of their choice (single or combination), provided for up to 12 weeks. The e-cigarette arm (n = 438) received an e-cigarette starter pack and were encouraged to buy addtional e-liquids and e-cigarette products of their choice. Both arms received the same standard behavioural support. Participants attended weekly sessions at their SSS and provided outcome data at 4 weeks. They were then followed up by telephone at 6 and 12 months. Participants reporting abstinence or at least 50% reduction in cigarette consumption at 12 months were invited to attend for carbon monoxide (CO) validation. Participants/ researchers could not be blinded to the intervention.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was CO-validated sustained abstinence rates at 52 weeks. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included abstinence at other time points, reduction in smoke intake, treatment adherence and ratings, elicited adverse reactions, and changes in self-reported respiratory health. A cost-efficacy analysis of the intervention was also conducted. Results: The 1-year quit rate was 9.9% in the NRT arm and 18.0% in the e-cigarette arm (risk ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.58; p < 0.001). The e-cigarette arm had significantly higher validated quit rates at all time points. Participants in the e-cigarette arm showed significantly better adherence and experienced fewer urges to smoke throughout the initial 4 weeks of their quit attempt than those in the NRT arm, and gave their allocated product more favourable ratings. They were also more likely to be still using their allocated product at 1 year (39.5% vs. 4.3%, Χ2 = 161.4; p < 0.001). Participants assigned to e-cigarettes reported significantly less coughing and phlegm at 1 year than those assigned to NRT (controlling for smoking status). A detailed economic analysis confirmed that, because e-cigarettes incur lower NHS costs than NRT and generate a higher quit rate, e-cigarette use is more cost-effective. Limitations: The results may not be generalisable to other types of smokers or settings, or to cartridge-based e-cigarettes. Conclusions: Within the context of multisession treatment for smokers seeking help, e-cigarettes were significantly more effective than NRT. If SSSs provide e-cigarette starter packs, it is likely to boost their success rates and improve their cost-efficacy.
|Journal||Health Technology Assessment|
|Journal citation||23 (43), pp. vii-81|
|Publisher||National Institute for Health Research|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||doi:10.3310/hta23430|
|01 Aug 2019|
|Publication process dates|
|Deposited||10 Feb 2020|
CC BY-NC 4.0
File Access Level
2views this month
1downloads this month