[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Table.  
Descriptive Characteristics of Participants Who Reported Current (Past 30 d) Cigarette Smoking at Baseline and Were Retained at 1-Year Follow-up
Descriptive Characteristics of Participants Who Reported Current (Past 30 d) Cigarette Smoking at Baseline and Were Retained at 1-Year Follow-up
1.
Grana  RA, Ling  PM.  Smoking revolution? a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites.  Am J Prev Med. In press.Google Scholar
2.
Bullen  C, Howe  C, Laugesen  M,  et al.  Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial.  Lancet. 2013;382(9905):1629-1637.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
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.Google Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    2 Comments for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    A civilian comment
    Sherri Simancas | none
    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.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Target Demographic.
    Ken | Vapor Advocates of Ontario
    Quote: \"The findings were based on survey answers from 949 smokers\"

    The target demographic to determine whether or not ENDS (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems) assist in cessation shouldn't be focused on smokers it should be focused on users of ENDS which can includes current smokers that are intentionally trying to quit and not using it as a gimmick or to circumvent second hand smoke by-laws and non-smokers, it should most definitely include users of ENDS that have successfully made the switch and no longer smoke.

    It seems as though they stacked the odds against ENDS to not include it's data.

    It would like
    trying to find out the rate of cirrhosis of the liver in alcoholics by testing people who have 1 drink a week who aren't even part of the target demographic.

    One has to question the validity of this study
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Research Letter
    May 2014

    A Longitudinal Analysis of Electronic Cigarette Use and Smoking Cessation

    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

    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.

    Methods

    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.

    Results

    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).

    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.

    Discussion

    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.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    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.

    References
    1.
    Grana  RA, Ling  PM.  Smoking revolution? a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites.  Am J Prev Med. In press.Google Scholar
    2.
    Bullen  C, Howe  C, Laugesen  M,  et al.  Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial.  Lancet. 2013;382(9905):1629-1637.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    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.Google Scholar
    ×