Dr. Mike Siegel's New Study On Ecigs

[Uma]

Mike Siegel's new study on e-cigarettes

EMBARGOED UNTIL 2:30 p.m. ET (February 8, 2011)

Contact: Dr. Michael Siegel (617-638-5167; mbsiegel@bu.edu)

Electronic Cigarettes Show Promise as a Smoking Cessation Tool:

New Study Finds Electronic Cigarettes More Effective Than NRT for Quitting Smoking

A new study being published online ahead of print today in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine reports that electronic cigarettes are a promising tool to help smokers quit, producing six-month abstinence rates that are better than those for traditional nicotine replacement products (NRT). In a six-month follow-up survey of 222 first-time purchasers of Blu electronic cigarettes, researchers from the Boston University School of Public Health found that 31.0% of respondents reported having quit smoking. This compares favorably to an average six-month abstinence rate of between 12% and 18% for NRT products. The authors conclude that electronic cigarettes are a promising method for smoking cessation. The study was led by Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health.

The authors conducted an internet-based survey of a sample of first-time purchasers of Blu electronic cigarettes six months after the initial purchase. The primary findings were the following:

· 31.0% of the respondents reported having quit smoking at six-month follow-up.

· Of those who had quit smoking, 34.3% had discontinued the use of electronic cigarettes as well.

· 66.8% of respondents reported having reduced the number of cigarettes they smoked after using electronic cigarettes.

· 66.8% of respondents reported having quit smoking for a period of time after using electronic cigarettes.

· Among respondents using electronic cigarettes frequently (more than 20 times per day), the six-month smoking abstinence rate was 70.0%.

The study’s main limitation is the low response rate of 4.5%. It is possible that those who responded to the survey were more likely to have quit smoking than those who did not respond. Nevertheless, despite this limitation, the study authors believe that this is the best evidence to date on the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. They point out that this is the first survey which relied upon an unbiased sampling frame. Despite the limitation, the authors conclude that electronic cigarettes “hold promise as a smoking-cessation method and that they are worthy of further study using more rigorous research designs.”

Dr. Siegel suggested that a major reason for electronic cigarettes’ apparent effectiveness as smoking cessation method is the fact that these devices address both the pharmacologic and behavioral aspects of addiction to smoking: “While it is well-recognized that nicotine plays a role in smoking addiction, little attention has been given to the behavioral aspects of the addiction. It is the fact that these devices simulate the smoking experience which appears to make them effective as a smoking cessation tool.”

A number of anti-smoking groups have argued that electronic cigarettes should be removed from the market because they have not been shown to be effective for smoking cessation, and several states – including New York – are considering bans on electronic cigarettes. “This study suggests that electronic cigarettes are helping literally thousands of ex-smokers to remain off cigarettes,” Dr. Siegel stated.

“Banning this product would invariably result in thousands of ex-smokers returning to cigarette smoking. Removing electronic cigarettes from the market would substantially harm the public’s health.”

Co-authors of the study were Kerry L. Tanwar and Kathleen S. Wood, also of the Boston University School of Public Health.

Michael Siegel, MD, MPH

Professor

Department of Community Health Sciences

Boston University School of Public Health

801 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd Floor

Boston, MA 02118

617-638-5167

[Nanna]

Yayyyyyyyyy!!!!!!

[juliery]

That still doesn't get around the FDA saying they want them banned until we know exactly what is in them, blah blah blah. Plus I certainly don't want them classified as a smoking cessation device.......which would toss them in with the gums, lozenges, etc. Personally I see them as an alternate nicotine delivery device. I have no intention of getting down to no nicotine, etc. I just wanted to stop smoking. I see them more as a smoking alternative. I could no more give up the hand/mouth habit after almost a year of a vaping as I could have the first day. It is stopping THAT habit that has always made me smoke again....so I would anticipate missing that habit just as much if I quit vaping as if I had stopped smoking using another method. Yes, I quit smoking using the e cig, but I don't want to quit vaping. Not even a distant goal.

[nana]

Nice! They should do a study of the people here. I think our success rate would be just a bit higher than what they found in that study. LOL The Blu doesn't work very well for most people, so image what the results they'd get if they polled eGo users.

It may not be the same for everyone (although I suspect it is), but for me, this statement is exactly why vaping has worked..."It is the fact that these devices simulate the smoking experience which appears to make them effective as a smoking cessation tool."

And for those "anti-smoking groups who have argued that electronic cigarettes should be removed from the market because they have not been shown to be effective for smoking cessation", they should go searching through the numerous forums because they are dead wrong on that one.

“Banning this product would invariably result in thousands of ex-smokers returning to cigarette smoking. Removing electronic cigarettes from the market would substantially harm the public’s health.” Absolutely!!! Except that I have a feeling the whole electronic cigarette market would go underground and we'd find a way to keep vaping instead of smoking.

I really don't want them labeled as a smoking cessation tool either. Smoking alternative sounds better because for most of us it's this or smoking. Although, I really don't ever want to go back to smoking. I'd like to say that if these were banned and there was no way I could get attys any more, I'd just have to quit all together. Realistically though, I don't know that I could do that. What I'd really like to see is for the FDA to shut up and leave the whole thing alone - don't "classify" vaping as anything.

[juliery]

I agree....I think a lot DOES depend on the device and where they got liquid from, etc. I mean really...that study just shows how effective ONE product line is....I think it would be a better study if it wasn't so limited. BUT even if the success rate was the same....say if the other NRT are 15% successful, okay those are people no longer smoking...say the e cig is also 15% effective, that is a DIFFERENT group of people, thereby adding to the overall success. SO why WOULDN"T they want to add another aid....IF THE goal is TRULY to get people to stop smoking???

As far as the underground, it would depend on the extent of the ban....if they made it illegal to possess nicotine liquid say, then you couldn't even use the things in your car or anywhere outdoors really....it would be the same as using any other illegal drugs. SO you would have to be willing to risk the expense of hiring attorneys AND risk your freedom. So that is a hard thing to say. PLUS if it is underground that means ALL the supplies would be incredibly more, and probably a whole lot more than smoking, as the prices are with any illicit or illegal drug. Some of us wouldn't have the means to finance that. So it would depend on the extent of the ban.

The whole thing is insane. What we REALLY NEED is for some independent lab, to study some of this stuff, SHOW it is safe, in a LAB setting, with TESTING and then as LONG as these idiots are using this "safety" argument there would be SOMETHING to combat it. We all KNOW that is not the REAL motive behind any ban,....BUT since that is what they are saying, then okay, fine, we chip away at their supposed issue. So when it is proven that it is NOT dangerous, then what will the argument be? Then that it appeals to kids and all these other side issues...which is why they do that, they toss in all kinds of garbage figuring something will stick. The point to me is that there are ALL kinds of things kids can get and become addicted to....look at all the obese kids and people that are said to have a "food addiction" .....if that is the argument, should we ban ANY food that is fattening or unhealthy and tastes good? After all, we wouldn't want it to appeal to kids. Anyway, the whole thing sucks AND that was the reason I didn't even want to start vaping...I KNEW this would happen and I didn't want to be stressing out over worrying about it. BUT I guess at the very least any cig I haven't smoked and don't smoke in the long run will be helpful. I hope they don't actually do this BS, but if they do I guess I will have to figure out then what to do. BUT could they ban the NO nic juices??????? Since the PG and VG is available here, anywhere, and approved, and the food flavorings obviously are fine.....COULD they EVER ban that???? Because really, I KNOW most of my thing is the habit, not the nic. SO that would be an option too. And they could ban the devices that are made in china from being imported, but they couldn't ban mods....then we would just need a whole lot of the other stuff, like cartos, attys, etc stockpiled. UGH, don't even wanna think about it. I will write letters and make calls and do whatever I can and hopefully if we ALL care enough to do that, HOPEFULLY it will have some kind of impact.

[Uma]

3 cheers for WebMD as well1!!! http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20110208/survey-e-cigarettes-may-help-smokers-quit

They covered the facts in many layers!! Excellent read.

[Sharon]

For me personally, I quit smoking 6 years ago, but missed the act of smoking. When I stumbled onto e cigs, I was delighted. I could smoke again. Mostly, I could enjoy all the things about smoking cigarettes without it being harmful to my health (as far as I can find to date). I also had the option of including nicotine if I wanted. It is a smoking alternative devise.

If the Government wants to ban something, then they should investigate and show proof that it is harmful. Then they need to ban everything that is harmful. Its funny how they continue to allow cigarettes and alcohol to be sold even after they have been proven to be harmful to the users health and everyone else around them. I think they don't like the idea that ecigs are taking away from tax revenue. Its always about the money! Bottom line!

[AimeeG]

And the FDA continues to allow chemicals that have been shown with clear evidence to be hazardous to health to be used. (I'm looking at you aspartame!)

It's shameful.