Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 13;2016(9):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3
Methods Design: 3‐arm double‐blind randomized controlled trial: EC with 7.2 mg nicotine for 12 weeks; same for 6 weeks followed by 5.2 mg for 6 weeks: EC with no nicotine for 12 weeks
Recruitment: Newspaper advertisements
Setting: Outpatient clinic, Italy
Inclusion criteria: Smoked at least 10 cpd for past 5 years; age 18 ‐ 70; in good health; not currently or intending to quit smoking in the next 30 days
Exclusion criteria: symptomatic cardiovascular or respiratory disease; regular psychotropic medicine use; current or past history of alcohol abuse; use of smokeless tobacco or NRT; pregnant or breast feeding.
Participants Total N: 300
36% women, mean age 44 (SD 12.5), mean cpd 20 (IQR: 15 ‐ 25)
Lost to follow‐up at 12 months
  • Grp A: N = 35/100

  • Grp B: N = 37/100

  • Grp C: N = 45/100


No participants discontinued intervention
Interventions EC presented as a healthier alternative to tobacco smoke and could be freely used, ad libitum (up to 4 cartridges per day) for 12 weeks, as a tobacco substitute
EC used: 'Categoria' (model 401) with disposable cartridges
  • Grp A: 12 weeks of 7.2 mg capsules ('Original')

  • Grp B: 6 weeks 7.2 mg ('Original') then 6 weeks 5.4 mg ('Categoria')

  • Grp C: 12 weeks of 0 mg ('Original')


Baseline visit and up to 7 follow‐up visits to receive more cartridges, hand in diaries, measure CO and vital signs
Outcomes Abstinence at 12 months (complete self‐reported abstinence from tobacco smoking since previous visit at 6 months, confirmed with CO < 7 ppm at 12 months)
≥ 50% reduction in baseline cigarettes at 12 months
Recorded AEs thought to be related to tobacco smoking and EC at baseline and at each study visit (7 follow‐up visits over 12 weeks, plus at 24 and 52 weeks)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer‐generated, block size 15 (5:5:5 ratio)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Randomization carried out by pharmacy, who did not have direct contact with the participants
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes Low risk Double‐blind. “Blinding was ensured by the identical external appearance of the cartridges. The hospital pharmacy was in charge of randomization and packaging of the cigarettes”
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Low risk Biochemical validation used
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk 211 (70.3%) and 183 (61%) attended 6‐ and 12‐month follow‐up (at 12m, 35% lost in 7.2 group; 37% lost in 5.4 group; 45% lost in no‐nicotine group)
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Unclear if original intention was to combine groups A+B or not. In sample size calculation they compared A+B with C, but results are not reported in this way