Helping pregnant smokers quit: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy

Health Technol Assess. 2023 Jul;27(13):1-53. doi: 10.3310/AGTH6901.

Abstract

Background: Some pregnant smokers try e-cigarettes, but effectiveness and safety of such use are unknown.

Objectives: To compare effectiveness and safety of nicotine patches and e-cigarettes in pregnancy.

Design: A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Twenty-three hospitals across England, and a Stop Smoking Service in Scotland.

Participants: One thousand one hundred and forty pregnant daily smokers (12-24 weeks' gestation) motivated to stop smoking, with no strong preference for using nicotine patches or e-cigarettes.

Interventions: Participants in the e-cigarette arm were posted a refillable e-cigarette device with two 10 ml bottles of tobacco-flavoured e-liquid (18 mg nicotine). Participants in the nicotine patches arm were posted a 2-week supply of 15 mg/16-hour nicotine patches. Supplies were provided for up to 8 weeks. Participants sourced further supplies themselves as needed. Participants in both arms received support calls prior to their target quit date, on the quit date, and weekly for the next 4 weeks.

Outcome measures: The primary outcome was validated prolonged abstinence at the end of pregnancy. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included self-reported abstinence at different time points, treatment adherence and safety outcomes.

Results: 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. 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%). 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).

Limitations: Low rates of validation reduced the study power. A substantial proportion of participants did not use the support on offer sufficiently to test its benefits. Sample size may have been too small to detect differences in less frequent adverse effects.

Conclusions: E-cigarettes were not significantly more effective than nicotine patches in the primary analysis, but when e-cigarettes use in the nicotine patches arm was accounted for, e-cigarettes were almost twice as effective as patches in all abstinence outcomes. In pregnant smokers seeking help, compared to nicotine patches, e-cigarettes are probably more effective, do not pose more risks to birth outcomes assessed in this study and may reduce the incidence of low birthweight.

Future work: Routine monitoring of smoking cessation and birth outcomes in pregnant women using nicotine patches and e-cigarettes and further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN62025374 and Eudract 2017-001237-65.

Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Keywords: E-CIGARETTES; NICOTINE REPLACEMENT TREATMENT; PREGNANCY; RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SMOKING; SMOKING CESSATION; VAPING.

Plain language summary

Like many other smokers in the UK, some pregnant smokers try to limit or stop smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. It is not known whether this helps with stopping smoking and whether using e-cigarettes has any bad effects on the baby. We recruited 1140 pregnant smokers who wanted to quit. A random half were given nicotine patches, which are commonly used to help smokers quit. The other half were given an e-cigarette. They also received six weekly phone calls to support them in stopping smoking. We then looked at how many in each group stopped smoking by the end of pregnancy. More women stopped smoking in the group that was given an e-cigarette, but the difference was small and could be due to chance. However, some of the women in the nicotine patch group who had successfully stopped smoking were using e-cigarettes rather than patches. When these (and women in the e-cigarette group who used patches) were not counted, e-cigarettes helped almost twice as many women stop smoking than patches. E-cigarettes were better than patches in preventing low birthweight (having babies who weigh less than 2.5 kg). Otherwise, women given patches and those given e-cigarettes (and their babies) had similar numbers of medical complications. For pregnant women who smoke and need help to quit, e-cigarettes are probably more helpful than nicotine patches, and do not pose any additional risks to women or their babies.

Publication types

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Multicenter Study

MeSH terms

  • Alcoholism*
  • Bayes Theorem
  • Birth Weight
  • Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Infant
  • Nicotine
  • Pregnancy
  • Smokers
  • Smoking Cessation* / methods
  • Tobacco Use Cessation Devices

Substances

  • Nicotine