-
Sleep Medicine Reviews Jun 2023The consumption of caffeine in response to insufficient sleep may impair the onset and maintenance of subsequent sleep. This systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The consumption of caffeine in response to insufficient sleep may impair the onset and maintenance of subsequent sleep. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effect of caffeine on the characteristics of night-time sleep, with the intent to identify the time after which caffeine should not be consumed prior to bedtime. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken with 24 studies included in the analysis. Caffeine consumption reduced total sleep time by 45 min and sleep efficiency by 7%, with an increase in sleep onset latency of 9 min and wake after sleep onset of 12 min. Duration (+6.1 min) and proportion (+1.7%) of light sleep (N1) increased with caffeine intake and the duration (-11.4 min) and proportion (-1.4%) of deep sleep (N3 and N4) decreased with caffeine intake. To avoid reductions in total sleep time, coffee (107 mg per 250 mL) should be consumed at least 8.8 h prior to bedtime and a standard serve of pre-workout supplement (217.5 mg) should be consumed at least 13.2 h prior to bedtime. The results of the present study provide evidence-based guidance for the appropriate consumption of caffeine to mitigate the deleterious effects on sleep.
Topics: Humans; Caffeine; Sleep; Polysomnography; Coffee; Sleep Deprivation
PubMed: 36870101
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2023.101764 -
Nutrients Dec 2022Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is one of the most widely consumed performance-enhancing substances in sport due to its well-established ergogenic effects. The use of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is one of the most widely consumed performance-enhancing substances in sport due to its well-established ergogenic effects. The use of caffeine is more common in aerobic-based sports due to the ample evidence endorsing the benefits of caffeine supplementation on endurance exercise. However, most of this evidence was established with cycling trials in the laboratory, while the effects of the acute intake of caffeine on endurance running performance have not been properly reviewed and meta-analyzed. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature on the effects of caffeine intake on endurance running performance. A systematic review of published studies was performed in four different scientific databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and SportDiscus) up until 5 October 2022 (with no year restriction applied to the search strategy). The selected studies were crossover experimental trials in which the ingestion of caffeine was compared to a placebo situation in a single- or double-blind randomized manner. The effect of caffeine on endurance running was measured by time to exhaustion or time trials. We assessed the methodological quality of each study using Cochrane’s risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool. A subsequent meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) estimated by Hedges’ g and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis, with caffeine doses ranging between 3 and 9 mg/kg. A total of 21 studies were included in the systematic review, with a total sample of 254 participants (220 men, 19 women and 15 participants with no information about gender; 167 were categorized as recreational and 87 were categorized as trained runners.). The overall methodological quality of studies was rated as unclear-to-low risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the time to exhaustion in running tests was improved with caffeine (g = 0.392; 95% CI = 0.214 to 0.571; p < 0.001, magnitude = medium). Subgroup analysis revealed that caffeine was ergogenic for time to exhaustion trials in both recreational runners (g = 0.469; 95% CI = 0.185 to 0.754; p = 0.001, magnitude = medium) and trained runners (g = 0.344; 95% CI = 0.122 to 0.566; p = 0.002, magnitude = medium). The meta-analysis also showed that the time to complete endurance running time trials was reduced with caffeine in comparison to placebo (g = −0.101; 95% CI = −0.190 to −0.012, p = 0.026, magnitude = small). In summary, caffeine intake showed a meaningful ergogenic effect in increasing the time to exhaustion in running trials and improving performance in running time trials. Hence, caffeine may have utility as an ergogenic aid for endurance running events. More evidence is needed to establish the ergogenic effect of caffeine on endurance running in women or the best dose to maximize the ergogenic benefits of caffeine supplementation.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Caffeine; Physical Endurance; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Running; Bicycling; Athletic Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36615805
DOI: 10.3390/nu15010148 -
General Hospital Psychiatry 2022Caffeine has been purported to have anxiogenic and panicogenic properties, specifically salient in patients with panic disorder (PD). However, compilations of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Caffeine has been purported to have anxiogenic and panicogenic properties, specifically salient in patients with panic disorder (PD). However, compilations of the magnitude of the effect of caffeine on anxiety and panic attacks are lacking and potential dose-response relationships have not been examined.
OBJECTIVES
In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to examine the acute effects of placebo-controlled caffeine challenge on occurrence of panic attacks and subjective anxiety in patients with PD and healthy controls (HC), including dose-response relationships.
METHODS
Systematic searches were performed in six databases. We included blinded placebo-controlled studies of acute caffeine challenge on panic attacks and/or subjective anxiety in adult patients with PD.
RESULTS
Of the 1893 identified articles, ten met our inclusion criteria. The 9 studies investigating panic attacks included 237 patients, of which 51.1% had a panic attack following caffeine, but none after placebo. Six of these studies compared 128 patients with 115 healthy controls (HC), finding that patients (53.9%) were more vulnerable than HC (1.7%) for panic attacks following caffeine (log RR: 3.47; 95% CI 2.06-4.87). Six studies investigated subjective anxiety in 121 patients and 111 HC following caffeine, with an overall effect indicating increased sensitivity to the anxiogenic effects of caffeine in the patient group (Hedges' g = 1.02 [95% CI: 0.09-1.96]). The restricted range of caffeine employed [400-750 mg] and few studies (3) not using 480 mg prevented any meaningful analysis of a dose-response relationship.
LIMITATIONS
Of the ten studies included, only 2 reported anxiety data for the placebo condition, precluding a proper meta-analysis comparing anxiogenic effects of caffeine and placebo. The restricted dose range used prevented assessment of dose-response relationships.
CONCLUSIONS
The results confirm that caffeine at doses roughly equivalent to 5 cups of coffee induces panic attacks in a large proportion of PD patients and highly discriminates this population from healthy adults. Caffeine also increases anxiety in PD patients as well as among healthy adults at these doses although the exact relationship between caffeine-induced anxiety and panic attacks remains uncertain. The results suggest that caffeine targets important mechanisms related to the pathophysiology of PD.
IMPLICATIONS
Future studies should employ a wider range of caffeine doses and investigate contributions of biological and psychological mechanisms underlying the anxiogenic and panicogenic effects of caffeine. In the clinic, patients with PD should be informed about the panicogenic and anxiogenic effects of caffeine, with the caveat that little is known regarding smaller doses than 480 mg. Registration. PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) registration number CRD42019120220.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Caffeine; Humans; Panic Disorder
PubMed: 34871964
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2021.11.005 -
The Medical Journal of Australia Apr 2023To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes).
STUDY DESIGN
Umbrella review (based on major independent reviews, including the 2018 United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] report) and top-up systematic review of published, peer-reviewed studies in humans examining the relationship of e-cigarette use to health outcomes published since the NASEM report.
DATA SOURCES
Umbrella review: eight major independent reviews published 2017-2021. Systematic review: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO (articles published July 2017 - July 2020 and not included in NASEM review).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Four hundred eligible publications were included in our synthesis: 112 from the NASEM review, 189 from our top-up review search, and 99 further publications cited by other reviews. There is conclusive evidence linking e-cigarette use with poisoning, immediate inhalation toxicity (including seizures), and e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI; largely but not exclusively for e-liquids containing tetrahydrocannabinol and vitamin E acetate), as well as for malfunctioning devices causing injuries and burns. Environmental effects include waste, fires, and generation of indoor airborne particulate matter (substantial to conclusive evidence). There is substantial evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes can cause dependence or addiction in non-smokers, and strong evidence that young non-smokers who use e-cigarettes are more likely than non-users to initiate smoking and to become regular smokers. There is limited evidence that freebase nicotine e-cigarettes used with clinical support are efficacious aids for smoking cessation. Evidence regarding effects on other clinical outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, development, and mental and reproductive health, is insufficient or unavailable.
CONCLUSION
E-cigarettes can be harmful to health, particularly for non-smokers and children, adolescents, and young adults. Their effects on many important health outcomes are uncertain. E-cigarettes may be beneficial for smokers who use them to completely and promptly quit smoking, but they are not currently approved smoking cessation aids. Better quality evidence is needed regarding the health impact of e-cigarette use, their safety and efficacy for smoking cessation, and effective regulation.
REGISTRATION
Systematic review: PROSPERO, CRD42020200673 (prospective).
Topics: Young Adult; Adolescent; Child; Humans; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Nicotine; Prospective Studies; Smoking; Smoking Cessation
PubMed: 36939271
DOI: 10.5694/mja2.51890 -
JAMA Jun 2021Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults.
DATA SOURCES
Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.
FINDINGS
Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.
Topics: Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antiemetics; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Ergot Alkaloids; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pain Measurement; Serotonin Receptor Agonists; Tryptamines
PubMed: 34128998
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.7939 -
Journal of the International Society of... 2018Caffeine is commonly used as an ergogenic aid. Literature about the effects of caffeine ingestion on muscle strength and power is equivocal. The aim of this systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Caffeine is commonly used as an ergogenic aid. Literature about the effects of caffeine ingestion on muscle strength and power is equivocal. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize results from individual studies on the effects of caffeine intake on muscle strength and power.
METHODS
A search through eight databases was performed to find studies on the effects of caffeine on: (i) maximal muscle strength measured using 1 repetition maximum tests; and (ii) muscle power assessed by tests of vertical jump. Meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (SMD) between placebo and caffeine trials from individual studies were conducted using the random effects model.
RESULTS
Ten studies on the strength outcome and ten studies on the power outcome met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analyses. Caffeine ingestion improved both strength (SMD = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.36; = 0.023) and power (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.34; = 0.047). A subgroup analysis indicated that caffeine significantly improves upper (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.39; = 0.026) but not lower body strength (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.34; = 0.147).
CONCLUSION
The meta-analyses showed significant ergogenic effects of caffeine ingestion on maximal muscle strength of upper body and muscle power. Future studies should more rigorously control the effectiveness of blinding. Due to the paucity of evidence, additional findings are needed in the female population and using different forms of caffeine, such as gum and gel.
Topics: Athletes; Caffeine; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Sports Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
PubMed: 29527137
DOI: 10.1186/s12970-018-0216-0 -
Nutrients Jun 2022Nutritional ergogenic aids (NEAs) are substances included within the group of sports supplements. Although they are widely consumed by athletes, evidence-based analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Nutritional ergogenic aids (NEAs) are substances included within the group of sports supplements. Although they are widely consumed by athletes, evidence-based analysis is required to support training outcomes or competitive performance in specific disciplines. Combat sports have a predominant use of anaerobic metabolism as a source of energy, reaching peak exertion or sustained effort for very short periods of time. In this context, the use of certain NEAs could help athletes to improve their performance in those specific combat skills (i.e., the number of attacks, throws and hits; jump height; and grip strength, among others) as well as in general physical aspects (time to exhaustion [TTE], power, fatigue perception, heart rate, use of anaerobic metabolism, etc.). Medline/PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO were searched from their inception to May 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Out of 677 articles found, 55 met the predefined inclusion criteria. Among all the studied NEAs, caffeine (5-10 mg/kg) showed strong evidence for its use in combat sports to enhance the use of glycolytic pathways for energy production during high-intensity actions due to a greater production of and tolerance to blood lactate levels. In this regard, abilities including the number of attacks, reaction time, handgrip strength, power and TTE, among others, were improved. Buffering supplements such as sodium bicarbonate, sodium citrate and beta-alanine may have a promising role in high and intermittent exertion during combat, but more studies are needed in grappling combat sports to confirm their efficacy during sustained isometric exertion. Other NEAs, including creatine, beetroot juice or glycerol, need further investigation to strengthen the evidence for performance enhancement in combat sports. Caffeine is the only NEA that has shown strong evidence for performance enhancement in combat sports.
Topics: Athletes; Athletic Performance; Caffeine; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Sports Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
PubMed: 35807770
DOI: 10.3390/nu14132588 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2021Heated tobacco products (HTP) are a form of nicotine delivery intended to be an alternative to traditional cigarettes. HTP tobacco products are sold to consumers as a... (Review)
Review
Heated tobacco products (HTP) are a form of nicotine delivery intended to be an alternative to traditional cigarettes. HTP tobacco products are sold to consumers as a less harmful alternative to traditional cigarettes, both for users and bystanders. The actual impact of HTP on the health of users and its overall impact on public health is still not fully known. A systematic search of the literature was carried out to identify relevant studies published in English from 2015 to February 2021. The following databases were used: PubMed, Scopus, Elsevier and ClinicalKey. 25 studies (independent and sponsored by the tobacco industry) were considered. The analysis of exposure biomarkers and cardiovascular and respiratory biomarkers showed differences between smokers and people using heated tobacco products. Improvements in clinically relevant risk markers, especially cholesterol, sICAM-1, 8-epi-PGF2α, 11-DTX-B2, HDL and FEV1, were observed compared to persistent cigarette smokers. On the other hand, exposure to IQOS has been reported to alter mitochondrial function, which may further exaggerate airway inflammation, airway remodeling and lung cancer. These products have the potential to increase oxidative stress and increase respiratory tract infections by increasing microbial adherence to the respiratory tract. Our review suggests that HTP products may be products with a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and cancer compared to traditional smoking, although in the case of non-smokers so far, they may pose a risk of their occurrence. Research seems to be necessary to assess the frequency of HTP use and its potential negative health effects.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Nicotine; Smokers; Nicotiana; Tobacco Products; Tobacco Smoking
PubMed: 34205612
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18126651 -
Food and Chemical Toxicology : An... Nov 2017To date, one of the most heavily cited assessments of caffeine safety in the peer-reviewed literature is that issued by Health Canada (Nawrot et al., 2003). Since then,... (Review)
Review
To date, one of the most heavily cited assessments of caffeine safety in the peer-reviewed literature is that issued by Health Canada (Nawrot et al., 2003). Since then, >10,000 papers have been published related to caffeine, including hundreds of reviews on specific human health effects; however, to date, none have compared the wide range of topics evaluated by Nawrot et al. (2003). Thus, as an update to this foundational publication, we conducted a systematic review of data on potential adverse effects of caffeine published from 2001 to June 2015. Subject matter experts and research team participants developed five PECO (population, exposure, comparator, and outcome) questions to address five types of outcomes (acute toxicity, cardiovascular toxicity, bone and calcium effects, behavior, and development and reproduction) in four healthy populations (adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children) relative to caffeine intake doses determined not to be associated with adverse effects by Health Canada (comparators: 400 mg/day for adults [10 g for lethality], 300 mg/day for pregnant women, and 2.5 mg/kg/day for children and adolescents). The a priori search strategy identified >5000 articles that were screened, with 381 meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria for the five outcomes (pharmacokinetics was addressed contextually, adding 46 more studies). Data were extracted by the research team and rated for risk of bias and indirectness (internal and external validity). Selected no- and low-effect intakes were assessed relative to the population-specific comparator. Conclusions were drawn for the body of evidence for each outcome, as well as endpoints within an outcome, using a weight of evidence approach. When the total body of evidence was evaluated and when study quality, consistency, level of adversity, and magnitude of response were considered, the evidence generally supports that consumption of up to 400 mg caffeine/day in healthy adults is not associated with overt, adverse cardiovascular effects, behavioral effects, reproductive and developmental effects, acute effects, or bone status. Evidence also supports consumption of up to 300 mg caffeine/day in healthy pregnant women as an intake that is generally not associated with adverse reproductive and developmental effects. Limited data were identified for child and adolescent populations; the available evidence suggests that 2.5 mg caffeine/kg body weight/day remains an appropriate recommendation. The results of this systematic review support a shift in caffeine research to focus on characterizing effects in sensitive populations and establishing better quantitative characterization of interindividual variability (e.g., epigenetic trends), subpopulations (e.g., unhealthy populations, individuals with preexisting conditions), conditions (e.g., coexposures), and outcomes (e.g., exacerbation of risk-taking behavior) that could render individuals to be at greater risk relative to healthy adults and healthy pregnant women. This review, being one of the first to apply systematic review methodologies to toxicological assessments, also highlights the need for refined guidance and frameworks unique to the conduct of systematic review in this field.
Topics: Adolescent; Adolescent Health; Adult; Caffeine; Child; Child Health; Female; Humans; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Young Adult
PubMed: 28438661
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, 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 smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco 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 to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted 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. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.
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, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Nicotinic Agonists; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Nicotine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36384212
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub7