Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

Background Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e‐liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014. Objectives To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long‐term smoking abstinence. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference‐checking and contact with study authors. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross‐over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow‐up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed‐effect Mantel‐Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta‐analyses. Main results We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty‐five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non‐randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate‐certainty ev