0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

A Longitudinal Analysis of Electronic Cigarette Use and Smoking Cessation FREE

Rachel A. Grana, PhD, MPH1; Lucy Popova, PhD1; Pamela M. Ling, MD, MPH1,2
[+] Author Affiliations
1Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco
2Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):812-813. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.187.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Although electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems) are aggressively promoted as smoking cessation aids,1 studies of their effectiveness for cessation have been unconvincing.2,3 One randomized trial comparing e-cigarettes with and without nicotine with a nicotine patch found no differences in 6-month quit rates.2 Population-based, longitudinal studies have also not shown associations between e-cigarette use and quitting.4,5 A longitudinal, international study found that, although 85% of smokers who used e-cigarettes reported using them to quit, e-cigarette users did not quit more frequently than nonusers (P = .52).4 Among US quitline callers, e-cigarette users were less likely to have quit at 7 months than nonusers.5 We conducted a longitudinal analysis of a national sample of current US smokers to determine whether e-cigarette use predicted successful quitting or reduced cigarette consumption.

Participants were current smokers recruited from the Knowledge Networks (now GfK)6 probability-based web-enabled panel who completed baseline (November 2011) and follow-up (November 2012) surveys. Of the 1549 participants from the 2011 survey who remained on the panel in 2012, 1189 were smokers and 81.3% completed the follow-up survey. Respondents who provided nonsensical data were excluded, yielding 949 participants. The institutional review board of the University of California, San Francisco, approved the study; all participants provided written electronic informed consent.

Baseline e-cigarette use was measured with the yes-or-no question, “Other than cigarettes, have you used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days (even once)?” Cigarettes used per day (continuous variable), time to first cigarette (<30 vs ≥30 min) and intention to quit (never, not in next 6 months, within next 6 months, within next month) were measured at baseline and follow-up. Bivariate comparisons were conducted using χ2 tests, t tests, and analyses of variance. Multivariate logistic regression analyses on quit status at 1-year follow-up, and multivariate linear regression analyses on cigarettes used per day at follow-up controlling for consumption at baseline were conducted. Regression analyses including demographic variables (age, sex, education, ethnicity) found that none of these variables were significant, so they were omitted from the final models.

Significantly more women, younger adults, and individuals with less education used e-cigarettes (Table). At baseline, a greater proportion of e-cigarette users reported smoking their first cigarette less than 30 minutes after waking compared with nonusers (69.0% vs 57.9%; P = .046). Baseline e-cigarette use was not significantly associated with greater intention to quit smoking (P = .09).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Descriptive Characteristics of Participants Who Reported Current (Past 30 d) Cigarette Smoking at Baseline and Were Retained at 1-Year Follow-up

E-cigarette use at baseline did not significantly predict quitting 1 year later (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.35-1.46]; P = .35). A second model including intent, consumption, and dependence covariates found that intention to quit (OR, 5.59 [95% CI, 2.41-12.98]; P < .001) and cigarettes smoked per day (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-0.99]; P = .02) significantly predicted quit status; past 30-day e-cigarette use did not (OR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.36-1.60]; P = .46).

Among participants who reported smoking at both baseline and follow-up (n = 821), e-cigarette use at baseline was not associated with a change in cigarette consumption (P = .25), controlling for baseline cigarette consumption.

Consistent with the only other longitudinal population-level study with 1-year follow-up that we are aware of,4 we found that e-cigarette use by smokers was not followed by greater rates of quitting or by reduction in cigarette consumption 1 year later. We lacked detailed data on e-cigarette use characteristics, such as frequency, duration, use patterns, or motivation for use. Our smoking cessation data were self-reported. Although 13.5% of the sample quit smoking, the low numbers of e-cigarette users in this sample (n = 88), particularly e-cigarette users who quit smoking (n = 9), may have limited our statistical power to detect a significant relationship between e-cigarette use and quitting.

Nonetheless, our data add to the current evidence that e-cigarettes may not increase rates of smoking cessation. Regulations should prohibit advertising claiming or suggesting that e-cigarettes are effective smoking cessation devices until claims are supported by scientific evidence.

Corresponding Author: Pamela M. Ling, MD, MPH, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Ave, Ste 366, San Francisco, CA 94143 (pling@medicine.ucsf.edu).

Published Online: March 24, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.187.

Author Contributions: Drs Grana and Ling had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition of data: Popova, Ling.

Analysis and interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Grana, Popova.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Grana, Popova.

Obtained funding: Ling.

Study supervision: Ling.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: Data originate from a study funded by the National Cancer Institute: R01-CA141661 (to L.P. and P.M.L.). R.A.G. is supported by Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP) grant 21FT-0040.

Role of the Sponsors: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or TRDRP.

Grana  RA, Ling  PM.  Smoking revolution? a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites. Am J Prev Med. In press.
Bullen  C, Howe  C, Laugesen  M,  et al.  Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9905):1629-1637.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Caponnetto  P, Campagna  D, Cibella  F,  et al.  EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66317.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Adkison  SE, O’Connor  RJ, Bansal-Travers  M,  et al.  Electronic nicotine delivery systems: international tobacco control four-country survey. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(3):207-215.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Vickerman  KA, Carpenter  KM, Altman  T, Nash  CM, Zbikowski  SM.  Use of electronic cigarettes among state tobacco cessation quitline callers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(10):1787-1791.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Popova  L, Neilands  TB, Ling  PM.  Testing messages to reduce smokers’ openness to using novel smokeless tobacco products [published online ahead of print March 6, 2013]. Tob Control. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050723.

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Descriptive Characteristics of Participants Who Reported Current (Past 30 d) Cigarette Smoking at Baseline and Were Retained at 1-Year Follow-up

References

Grana  RA, Ling  PM.  Smoking revolution? a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites. Am J Prev Med. In press.
Bullen  C, Howe  C, Laugesen  M,  et al.  Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9905):1629-1637.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Caponnetto  P, Campagna  D, Cibella  F,  et al.  EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66317.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Adkison  SE, O’Connor  RJ, Bansal-Travers  M,  et al.  Electronic nicotine delivery systems: international tobacco control four-country survey. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(3):207-215.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Vickerman  KA, Carpenter  KM, Altman  T, Nash  CM, Zbikowski  SM.  Use of electronic cigarettes among state tobacco cessation quitline callers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(10):1787-1791.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Popova  L, Neilands  TB, Ling  PM.  Testing messages to reduce smokers’ openness to using novel smokeless tobacco products [published online ahead of print March 6, 2013]. Tob Control. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050723.

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
A civilian comment
Posted on April 1, 2014
Sherri Simancas
none
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
I saw your study quoted on CBS news and wanted to give you a lay-persons viewpoint.First, I haven't seen e-cigarettes being aggressively advertised in my area as a smoking cessation aid or otherwise. Word of mouth has been the predominant method of delivery, which leads to the next point. I personally know at least 20 people who have stopped smoking by using e-cigarettes. I know of one person that tried them and did not.I am commenting because I come into contact with so many other people I do not personally know that can confirm the same information about their friends and family. There is a store here locally that makes their own \"juices\" and has over 100 customers a day, all former smokers who have stopped smoking. They are thrilled to be breathing easier, saving money and many other benefits in contrast to smoking tobacco. I find this study to be such a contradiction to everything I am seeing and hearing. How can it be that there are so many people now \"vaping\" and not smoking, yet this article concludes it is not working. If it were not working, these vape shops would not be popping up in ever city block and even in small towns here in Arkansas. The business is growing leaps and bounds, which could not be possible of people were only trying them, then stopping to resume smoking.Now I am seeing that this study and others like it only create conspiracy theories that our top scientists are being funded by everything from tobacco lobbyists to those who don't want to state governments that don't want to lose tax dollars. Read comments on news sites, they all contradict the results of these studies. It's sad, because it reduces the credibility of other published research when the general population sees this and knows it is complete opposition to what they are seeing. Thank you for listening.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

8,608 Views
29 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
×