ABSTRACT
Introduction The health effects of dual use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and combustible cigarettes are unclear. We report on differences in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, lung function, and clinical laboratory markers among people who smoke used e-cigarettes to reduce their cigarette smoking in a randomized placebo-controlled trial.
Methods Participants (n=520) who regularly smoked cigarettes were randomized to 1 of 4 conditions (e-cigarette device paired with liquid containing 0, 8, or 36 mg/mL of nicotine or a cigarette-substitute [CS]) and encouraged to reduce their smoking over 6 months. Group differences were assessed between the e-cigarettes and CS conditions at baseline and 6-month using one-way ANOVA and linear mixed-effects model. Multi-testing adjustment was not applied as the analysis was exploratory in nature. Primary outcomes were: CVD risk (i.e., blood lipids, C-reactive protein, blood pressure, heart rate, waist-to-hip ratio, body mass index, and INTERHEART risk score), lung function (i.e., spirometry indices and clinical COPD questionnaire), and other clinical laboratory markers (i.e., complete blood count and complete metabolic panel).
Results At 6-month, use of nicotine e-cigarettes caused no significant differences from control groups for most measures. However, participants randomized to 36 mg/mL e-cigarettes had significantly higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (p=0.003 in unadjusted analysis, p=0.002 in adjusted analysis), and lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (p=0.044 in adjusted analysis) and cholesterol/HDL ratio (p=0.034 in unadjusted analysis, p=0.026 in adjusted analysis) as compared to CS. Also, those in the 36 mg/mL e-cigarette condition had higher levels of HDL as compared to those in 0 mg/mL condition (p=0.016 in unadjusted analysis, p=0.019 in adjusted analysis).
Conclusions Those randomized to the highest nicotine e-cigarettes had small improvement in some measures of blood lipids (e.g., increased HDL, and reduced LDL and cholesterol/HDL ratio) as compared to a non-aerosol CS among individuals attempting to reduce their cigarette smoking. Future studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation would benefit from including these measures to further explore the results found in this study.
Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02342795.
Strengths and limitations of this study
The use of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial design with two nicotine concentrations and a relatively long follow-up period (6 months).
Use of an additional randomized control group who did not use an electronic cigarette device, but were given a “cigarette substitute” product with no aerosol but similar behavioral requirements.
Participants had to be daily cigarette smokers with no plans to quit smoking, but an interest in reducing, and were recruited from two U.S. sites. The results may only be generalizable to similar populations.
These were exploratory analyses of a comprehensive group of commonly used clinical markers, rather than hypothesis-driven primary outcomes. These results therefore provide a preliminary assessment of effects that may inform future studies.
Competing Interest Statement
JF has done paid consulting for pharmaceutical companies involved in producing smoking cessation medications, including GSK, Pfizer, Novartis, J&J and Cypress Bioscience. There are no other competing interests to report for other authors.
Clinical Trial
NCT02342795
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P50DA036105 and U54DA36105 and the Center for Tobacco Products of the US Food and Drug Administration. JY, JF and SV were also supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Drug Abuse under Award Number P50DA036107. SM was supported during the preparation of this paper by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under Grant Number T32DA016184.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of Penn State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. On publication, requests for deidentified individual participant data or study documents (eg, data dictionary; protocol; statistical analysis plan; measures, manuals or informed consent documentation) will be considered. The requestor must submit a one-page abstract of their proposed research, including the purpose, analytical plan and dissemination plans. The Executive Leadership Committee (Virginia Commonwealth University and Penn State University) will review the abstract and decide on the basis of the individual merits. Review criteria and prioritization of projects include potential of the proposed work to advance public health, qualifications of the applicant, the potential for publication, the potential for future funding, and enhancing the scientific, geographic and demographic diversity of the research portfolio. Following abstract approval, requestors must receive institutional ethics approval or confirmation of exempt status for the proposed research. An executed data use agreement must be completed before data distribution. Requests should be made to the corresponding author.