Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Nicotine or tobacco abstinence?

Rachael L. Murray, Matthew Evison, Matthew E. Callister
European Respiratory Review 2022 31: 220089; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0089-2022
Rachael L. Murray
1Academic Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
2SPECTRUM consortium, Edinburgh, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rachael.murray@nottingham.ac.uk
Matthew Evison
3Wythenshaw Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew E. Callister
4Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthew E. Callister
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Tobacco abstinence should be the key public health goal to reduce the mortality and morbidity burden in people who smoke; nicotine is not the key substance responsible for the incidence of many cancers, heart and respiratory disease from smoking https://bit.ly/3QdrqR1

To the Editor:

We read with interest the meta-analysis by Hanewinkel et al. [1] regarding e-cigarette use and nicotine abstinence. The summary graph from the manuscript (shown here as figure 1a) clearly illustrates the competing issues in comparing the harms or benefits of these two smoking cessation adjuncts.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

a) Anticipated absolute effects of e-cigarette use versus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); reproduced from Hanewinkel et al. [1]. b) Overall net population harm caused by the use of e-cigarettes versus medicinally licensed nicotine-containing products according to e-cigarette to smoking harm ratio.

Considering the population as a whole, 85.7% of people will continue to smoke and 3.7% will quit nicotine altogether irrespective of the smoking cessation adjunct used. This leaves 10.6% of the population who are of interest in this comparison. In the e-cigarette group, all 10.6% continue to use nicotine through their e-cigarette. In the nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) group, 5.3% continue to smoke, 2% continue to use nicotine through NRT, and 3.3% quit nicotine use altogether.

The public health goal is to effectively treat tobacco dependence, and thus reduce smoking prevalence. Whilst not completely harmless, medicinally licensed nicotine does not evoke the same health risks and harms (e.g. cardiovascular disease, cancer, death) that occur from smoking tobacco. It is for this reason the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK recommend medicinally licensed nicotine-containing products are prescribed for as long as is required to prevent relapse to smoking without any time limit [2].

In comparing the overall harms between these two approaches, we are therefore attempting to balance the harms to the 5.3% of participants in the NRT group who continue to smoke against the 10.6% of participants in the e-cigarette group who continue long-term use of nicotine through their e-cigarette. The obvious uncertainty here is the ratio of harm between e-cigarette use and smoking. Although there is huge divergence in opinion on e-cigarettes, areas of probable consensus are that e-cigarettes are unlikely to be completely harmless, and that e-cigarettes are unlikely to be more harmful than smoking. It is likely, therefore, that the ratio of e-cigarette harm relative to smoking will be somewhere between 0 and 1.

This precise harm ratio will only become apparent with the passage of time. However, simple mathematical modelling can inform the debate in a non-partisan way in the interim. If we define an arbitrary harm unit (AHU) as the annual harm done by smoking cigarettes, then it is straightforward to model the harm that might be done by vaping as the harm ratio varies as shown in figure 1b. For the 100 people in the NRT group, the overall harm will be 91 AHUs (the number who continue to smoke with NRT). The harm in the e-cigarette group will vary from 85.7 AHUs (if e-cigarettes are harmless) to 96.3 AHUs (if e-cigarettes are as harmful as normal cigarettes). Therefore, if the harm of e-cigarettes is >50% that of smoking, then their use results in net harm to the population as a whole, whereas if the harm ratio is <50%, there is a net benefit to population health. Public Health England has previously estimated the harm of e-cigarette use to be 5% that of smoking tobacco [3], although this estimate has been disputed [4]. At this harm ratio, the overall harm of medicinally licensed nicotine-containing products in this population would be 91 AHUs versus 86.2 AHUs for the vaping population.

In summary, if e-cigarette use does less than half the harm of smoking tobacco, their use would appear to result in a net gain in population health in comparison to medicinally licensed nicotine-containing products when treating patients with tobacco dependency. Whilst e-liquid aerosols contain harmful chemicals, the NICE tobacco dependency guideline group in the UK concluded vaping is likely to be “substantially less harmful than smoking tobacco” following a network meta-analysis by the expert guideline committee using the standard robust NICE methodology [2]. We propose that the data described by Hanewinkel et al. [1] have provided further evidence that supports the use of e-cigarettes as an evidence-based intervention for tobacco dependency when the primary goal is tobacco abstinence. However, as stated above, e-cigarettes are unlikely to be completely harmless, and thus alongside their use as an evidence-based treatment for tobacco dependency, it is vital that their use in never-smokers, particularly teenagers, is heavily discouraged due to uncertainty about long-term effects.

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: R.L. Murray reports grants from Yorkshire Cancer Research, European Union Horizon 2020, Alcohol Focus Scotland; consulting fees from Action on Smoking and Health; and acts as a Trustee for Action on Smoking and Health, and a Board member for the Tobacco Advisory Group, Royal College of Physicians; outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Evison has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M.E. Callister reports grants from Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial – supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research (YCR); and is a member of the British Thoracic Oncology Group Steering Committee and the NHS England Targeted Lung Health Check Expert Advisory Group; outside the submitted work.

  • Received May 9, 2022.
  • Accepted July 31, 2022.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hanewinkel R,
    2. Niederberger K,
    3. Pedersen A, et al.
    E-cigarettes and nicotine abstinence: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur Respir Rev 2022; 31: 210215. doi:10.1183/16000617.0215-2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    . Tobacco: preventing uptake, promoting quitting and treating dependence. NICE guideline [NG209]. Date last updated: 4 August 2022. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209/chapter/Recommendations-on-preventing-uptake
  3. ↵
    1. McNeill A,
    2. Brose LS,
    3. Calder R, et al.
    E-cigarettes: an evidence update. A report commissioned by Public Health England. London, Public Health England, 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update
  4. ↵
    1. The Lancet
    . E-cigarettes: Public Health England's evidence-based confusion. Lancet 2015; 386: 829. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00042-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 31 Issue 166 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Review: 31 (166)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Nicotine or tobacco abstinence?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Nicotine or tobacco abstinence?
Rachael L. Murray, Matthew Evison, Matthew E. Callister
European Respiratory Review Dec 2022, 31 (166) 220089; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0089-2022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Nicotine or tobacco abstinence?
Rachael L. Murray, Matthew Evison, Matthew E. Callister
European Respiratory Review Dec 2022, 31 (166) 220089; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0089-2022
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Reply to: “Nicotine or tobacco abstinence?”
  • Biochemical shunt: where and how?
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERR

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising
  • Sponsorship

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 0905-9180
Online ISSN: 1600-0617

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society