TY - JOUR
T1 - Safety of e‐cigarettes and nicotine patches as stop‐smoking aids in pregnancy: Secondary analysis of the Pregnancy Trial of E-cigarettes and Patches (PREP) randomized controlled trial
AU - Pesola, Francesca
AU - Myers Smith, Katie
AU - Phillips-Waller, Anna
AU - Przulj, Dunja
AU - Griffiths, Christopher
AU - Walton, Robert
AU - McRobbie, Hayden
AU - Coleman, Tim
AU - Lewis, Sarah
AU - Whitemore, Rachel
AU - Clark, Miranda
AU - Ussher, Michael
AU - Sinclair, Lesley
AU - Seager, Emily
AU - Cooper, Sue
AU - Bauld, Linda
AU - Naughton, Felix
AU - Sasieni, Peter
AU - Manyonda, Isaac
AU - Hajek, Peter
N1 - Funding Information: The study was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme, ref: 15/57/85. The funder had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the paper; or in the decision to submit the findings for publication.
PY - 2024/5
Y1 - 2024/5
N2 - Aims: The aim of this study was to examine the safety of e-cigarettes (EC) and nicotine patches (NRT) when used to help pregnant smokers quit. Design: A recent trial of EC versus NRT reported safety outcomes in the randomized arms. We conducted a further analysis based on product use. Setting: Twenty-three hospitals in England and a stop-smoking service in Scotland took part. Participants: The participants comprised 1140 pregnant smokers. Interventions: We compared women using and not using EC and NRT regularly during pregnancy. Measurements: Measurements included nicotine intake compared with baseline, birth weight, other pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal respiratory symptoms and relapse in early abstainers. Findings: Use of EC was more common than use of NRT (47.3% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001). Women who stopped smoking (abstainers) and used EC at the end-of-pregnancy (EOP) reduced their salivary cotinine by 45% [49.3 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −79.8 to −10]. Only one abstainer used NRT at EOP. In dual users, cotinine increased by 19% (24 ng/ml, 95% CI = 3.5–68). In women reporting a reduction of at least 50% in cigarette consumption, cotinine levels increased by 10% in those using nicotine products and by 9% in those who did not. Birth weights in dual users and exclusive smokers were the same (3.1 kg). Birth weight in abstainers using either nicotine product was higher than in smokers [3.3 kg, standard deviation (SD) = 0.7] versus 3.1 kg, SD = 0.6; difference = 0.15 kg, 95% CI = 0.05–0.25) and not different from abstainers not using nicotine products (3.1 kg, SD = 0.8). Abstainers and smokers using nicotine products had no worse pregnancy outcomes or more adverse events than abstainers and smokers not using them. EC users reported more improvements than non-users in cough [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37–0.93] and phlegm (aRR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.31–0.92), controlling for smoking status. EC or NRT use had no association with relapse. Conclusions: Regular use of e-cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes.
AB - Aims: The aim of this study was to examine the safety of e-cigarettes (EC) and nicotine patches (NRT) when used to help pregnant smokers quit. Design: A recent trial of EC versus NRT reported safety outcomes in the randomized arms. We conducted a further analysis based on product use. Setting: Twenty-three hospitals in England and a stop-smoking service in Scotland took part. Participants: The participants comprised 1140 pregnant smokers. Interventions: We compared women using and not using EC and NRT regularly during pregnancy. Measurements: Measurements included nicotine intake compared with baseline, birth weight, other pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal respiratory symptoms and relapse in early abstainers. Findings: Use of EC was more common than use of NRT (47.3% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001). Women who stopped smoking (abstainers) and used EC at the end-of-pregnancy (EOP) reduced their salivary cotinine by 45% [49.3 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −79.8 to −10]. Only one abstainer used NRT at EOP. In dual users, cotinine increased by 19% (24 ng/ml, 95% CI = 3.5–68). In women reporting a reduction of at least 50% in cigarette consumption, cotinine levels increased by 10% in those using nicotine products and by 9% in those who did not. Birth weights in dual users and exclusive smokers were the same (3.1 kg). Birth weight in abstainers using either nicotine product was higher than in smokers [3.3 kg, standard deviation (SD) = 0.7] versus 3.1 kg, SD = 0.6; difference = 0.15 kg, 95% CI = 0.05–0.25) and not different from abstainers not using nicotine products (3.1 kg, SD = 0.8). Abstainers and smokers using nicotine products had no worse pregnancy outcomes or more adverse events than abstainers and smokers not using them. EC users reported more improvements than non-users in cough [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37–0.93] and phlegm (aRR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.31–0.92), controlling for smoking status. EC or NRT use had no association with relapse. Conclusions: Regular use of e-cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes.
KW - Birth weight
KW - e-cigarettes
KW - nicotine
KW - pregnancy
KW - safety
KW - smoking
KW - vaping
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85182496809&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/add.16422
DO - 10.1111/add.16422
M3 - Article
VL - 119
SP - 875
EP - 884
JO - Addiction
JF - Addiction
SN - 0965-2140
IS - 5
ER -