Richardpruen (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (Add paper from second-wave PREP trial analysis plus expert response) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* If you'd prefer someone else to add a study to a topic, there is a subject section called "Suggested studies to add to this page". You may put the link in that section for one of the regular page editors to address. | * If you'd prefer someone else to add a study to a topic, there is a subject section called "Suggested studies to add to this page". You may put the link in that section for one of the regular page editors to address. | ||
* If you'd like to help add content to this page, please see the directions at the bottom of the page. | * If you'd like to help add content to this page, please see the directions at the bottom of the page. | ||
=== 2024: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.16422 Safety of e-cigarettes and nicotine patches as stop-smoking aids in pregnancy: Secondary analysis of the Pregnancy Trial of E-cigarettes and Patches (PREP) randomized controlled trial] === | |||
* [https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/115987 Full version (open access)] | |||
* [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/add.16422 PDF] | |||
* Conclusions: Regular use of e-cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes. | |||
* Setting 23 hospitals in England and a stop-smoking service in Scotland. Participants 1,140 pregnant smokers. | |||
* Pesola, F; Myers Smith, K; Phillips-Waller, A; Przulj, D; Griffiths, C; Walton, R; McRobbie, H; Coleman, T; Lewis, S; Ussher, MH; et al. | |||
* Funding source: 15/57/85 National Institute for Health and Care Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272 | |||
=== 2024: [https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-of-impacts-of-vaping-in-pregnancy-and-comparison-with-smoking/ Expert reaction to above] === | |||
* “This paper presents high quality evidence, as a secondary analysis of data from the first UK trial of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation during pregnancy." | |||
* “It is really reassuring that people who quit smoking using an e-cigarette during pregnancy in this study had better pregnancy outcomes than women who continued to smoke tobacco, and did not have any worse outcomes than people who do not smoke at all. This provides reassurance of the safety of e cigarettes for smoking cessation during pregnancy. NRT is already recommended for use during pregnancy for smoking cessation. The findings of this study suggest that e cigarettes do not differ in safety profile from NRT. My reading of this evidence is that e-cigarettes could be viewed as a form of NRT and also can be recommended for smoking cessation to pregnant women, especially as tobacco smoking is so damaging.” | |||
* “An earlier analysis of this trial found a similar safety profile between those who were randomly given e-cigarettes compared with those given nicotine replacement therapy to quit smoking, but this may have resulted from a difference in the actual usage of the two products. This new study analysed the comparative safety based on their actual use, although this meant the two groups were no longer randomly selected. Taken together, the similar sets of results across the two different approaches are reassuring.” | |||
=== 2023: [https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/AGTH6901/#/full-report Helping pregnant smokers quit: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy] === | |||
* Przulj D, Pesola F, Myers Smith K, McRobbie H, Coleman T, Lewis S, ''et al.'' Helping pregnant smokers quit: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy. ''Health Technol Assess'' 2023;27(13) | |||
* Rates of adverse events and adverse birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms, apart from participants in the e-cigarette arm having fewer infants with low birthweight (<2500 g) (9.6% vs. 14.8%, risk ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.90; Bayes factor = 10.3) | |||
* At end of pregnancy, 33.8% versus 5.6% of participants were using their allocated product in the e-cigarettes versus nicotine patches arm (risk ratio = 6.01, 95% confidence interval 4.21 to 8.58). Regular use of e-cigarettes in the nicotine patches arm was more common than use of nicotine replacement products in the e-cigarette arm (17.8% vs. 2.8%). | |||
* Only 55% of self-reported abstainers mailed back useable saliva samples. Due to this, validated sustained abstinence rates were low (6.8% vs. 4.4% in the e-cigarettes and nicotine patches arms, respectively, risk ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.53; Bayes factor = 2.7). In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis that excluded abstainers using non-allocated products, the difference became significant (6.8% vs. 3.6%, risk ratio = 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 3.26; Bayes factor = 10). Almost a third of the sample did not set a target quit date and the uptake of support calls was low, as was the initial product use. | |||
=== 2022: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01808-0 Electronic cigarettes versus nicotine patches for smoking cessation in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial] === | === 2022: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01808-0 Electronic cigarettes versus nicotine patches for smoking cessation in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial] === | ||
| Line 92: | Line 113: | ||
==== Click on the category link below for more studies by topic on ENDS and Nicotine. ==== | ==== Click on the category link below for more studies by topic on ENDS and Nicotine. ==== | ||
[[Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]] | [[index.php?title=Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]] | ||
__FORCETOC__ | __FORCETOC__ | ||
edits