Polosa 2015.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Design: Prospective cohort Recruitment: Professional retail staff in participating vape shops Setting: 7 vape shops in Catania province, Italy Study start date/end date: Not specified |
|
| Participants | Total N: 71 Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion criteria:
38% women, mean age 41.7, mean cpd 24.9, mean FTND 5 No EC use at baseline |
|
| Interventions |
EC: Refillable Instructed how to charge, fill, activate and use EC; key troubleshooting advice provided; phone number available for technical support “Encouraged to use these products in anticipation of reducing the number of cig/day smoked” |
|
| Outcomes | 6 and 12 m follow‐up 30‐day PPA via self‐report Details of product purchase Sustained 50% and 80% reduction in cpd from baseline |
|
| Study funding | Authors wish to thank the local participating Vape Shops and LIAF, Lega Italiana Anti Fumo (Italian acronym for the Italian Anti‐Smoking League) for supporting this research | |
| Author declarations | Riccardo Polosa has received lecture fees and research funding from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of stop smoking medications. He has also served as a consultant for Pfizer and Arbi Group Srl, an Italian distributor of e‐Cigarettes. Riccardo Polosa is currently scientific advisor for LIAF, Lega Italiana Anti Fumo (Italian acronym for Italian Anti‐Smoking League). Jacques Le‐Houezec is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson France, a manufacturer of nicotine replacement therapy, and was reimbursed for travel and accommodation to present at a conference in Shenzhen (China) organized by the e‐cig manufacturer association (CECMOL). Pasquale Caponnetto and Fabio Cibella have no relevant conflict of interest to declare in relation to this work | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | High risk | Not controlled |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Not controlled |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | 69% follow‐up at 12 m. Participants lost to follow‐up considered as continuing smokers |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Unable to determine prespecified outcomes |