IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0237938.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Role of e-cigarettes and pharmacotherapy during attempts to quit cigarette smoking: The PATH Study 2013-16

Author

Listed:
  • John P Pierce
  • Tarik Benmarhnia
  • Ruifeng Chen
  • Martha White
  • David B Abrams
  • Bridget K Ambrose
  • Carlos Blanco
  • Nicolette Borek
  • Kelvin Choi
  • Blair Coleman
  • Wilson M Compton
  • K Michael Cummings
  • Cristine D Delnevo
  • Tara Elton-Marshall
  • Maciej L Goniewicz
  • Shannon Gravely
  • Geoffrey T Fong
  • Dorothy Hatsukami
  • James Henrie
  • Karin A Kasza
  • Sheila Kealey
  • Heather L Kimmel
  • Jean Limpert
  • Raymond S Niaura
  • Carolina Ramôa
  • Eva Sharma
  • Marushka L Silveira
  • Cassandra A Stanton
  • Michael B Steinberg
  • Ethel Taylor
  • Maansi Bansal-Travers
  • Dennis R Trinidad
  • Lisa D Gardner
  • Andrew Hyland
  • Samir Soneji
  • Karen Messer

Abstract

Background: More smokers report using e-cigarettes to help them quit than FDA-approved pharmacotherapy. Objective: To assess the association of e-cigarettes with future abstinence from cigarette and tobacco use. Design: Cohort study of US sample, with annual follow-up. Participants: US adult (ages 18+) daily cigarette smokers identified at Wave 1 (W1; 2013–14) of the PATH Study, who reported a quit attempt before W2 and completed W3 (n = 2443). Exposures: Use of e-cigarettes, pharmacotherapy (including nicotine replacement therapy), or no product for last quit attempt (LQA), and current daily e-cigarette use at W2. Analysis: Propensity score matching (PSM) of groups using different methods to quit. Outcome measures: 12+ months abstinence at W3 from cigarettes and from all tobacco (including e-cigarettes). 30+ days abstinence at W3 was a secondary outcome. Results: Among daily smokers with an LQA, 23.5% used e-cigarettes, 19.3% used pharmacotherapy only (including NRT) and 57.2% used no product. Cigarette abstinence for 12+ months at W3 was ~10% in each group. Half of the cigarette abstainers in the e-cigarette group were using e-cigarettes at W3. Different methods to help quitting had statistically comparable 12+ month cigarette abstinence at W3 (e-cigarettes vs no product: Risk Difference (RD) = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.06; e-cigarettes vs pharmacotherapy: RD = 0.02, 95% CI:-0.04 to 0.09). Likewise, daily e-cigarette users at W2 did not show a cessation benefit over comparable no-e-cigarette users and this finding was robust to sensitivity analyses. Abstinence for 30+ days at W3 was also similar across products. Limitations: The frequency of e-cigarette use during the LQA was not assessed, nor was it possible to assess continuous abstinence from the LQA. Conclusion: Among US daily smokers who quit cigarettes in 2014–15, use of e-cigarettes in that attempt compared to approved cessation aids or no products showed similar abstinence rates 1–2 years later.

Suggested Citation

  • John P Pierce & Tarik Benmarhnia & Ruifeng Chen & Martha White & David B Abrams & Bridget K Ambrose & Carlos Blanco & Nicolette Borek & Kelvin Choi & Blair Coleman & Wilson M Compton & K Michael Cummi, 2020. "Role of e-cigarettes and pharmacotherapy during attempts to quit cigarette smoking: The PATH Study 2013-16," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237938
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237938
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237938
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237938&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0237938?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yongji Wang & Hongwei Cai & Chanjuan Li & Zhiwei Jiang & Ling Wang & Jiugang Song & Jielai Xia, 2013. "Optimal Caliper Width for Propensity Score Matching of Three Treatment Groups: A Monte Carlo Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-7, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Loureiro, Gilberto & Silva, Sónia, 2022. "Earnings management and stock price crashes post U.S. cross-delistings," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    2. Pécastaing, Nicolas & Salavarriga, Juan, 2022. "The potential impact of fishing in peruvian marine protected areas (MPAs) on artisanal fishery poverty during El Niño events," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    3. Junqing Xie & Shuo Feng & Xintong Li & Ester Gea-Mallorquí & Albert Prats-Uribe & Dani Prieto-Alhambra, 2022. "Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Gilberto Loureiro & Sónia Silva, 2015. "Post-Operating Performance of Cross-Delisted Firms From U.S. Stock Exchanges," NIPE Working Papers 17/2015, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    5. Lucia Svabova & Marek Durica & Katarina Kramarova & Katarina Valaskova & Katarina Janoskova, 2019. "Employability and Sustainability of Young Graduates in the Slovak Labour Market: Counterfactual Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Loureiro, Gilberto & Silva, Sónia, 2020. "The impact of cross-delisting from the U.S. On firms’ financial constraints," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 132-146.
    7. Gabriele Cappelli & Michelangelo Vasta, 2021. "A “Silent Revolution”: school reforms and Italy’s educational gender gap in the Liberal Age (1861–1921)," Cliometrica, Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), vol. 15(1), pages 203-229, January.
    8. Szabolcs Szekér & Ágnes Vathy-Fogarassy, 2020. "Weighted nearest neighbours-based control group selection method for observational studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, July.
    9. Moritz Sefried & Jan Riepe, 2023. "The benefits of banks’ IT investments in times of trouble: evidence from loan loss accruals during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 149-171, January.
    10. Gilberto Loureiro & Sónia Silva, 2015. "Cross-Delisting, Financial Constraints and Investment Sensitivities," NIPE Working Papers 15/2015, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    11. Chen, Jason V., 2023. "The wisdom of crowds and the market's response to earnings news: Evidence using the geographic dispersion of investors," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2).
    12. Richard T. Melstrom, 2021. "The Effect of Land Use Restrictions Protecting Endangered Species on Agricultural Land Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 162-184, January.
    13. Gabriele Cappelli & michelangelo.vasta@unisi.it, 2019. "Can school centralisation foster human capital accumulation? A quasi-experiment from early XX century Italy," Department of Economics University of Siena 802, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    14. Lim, Boram & Xie, Ying & Haruvy, Ernan, 2022. "The impact of mobile app adoption on physical and online channels," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 453-470.
    15. Hu, Jin & Hu, Daning & Yang, Xuan & Chau, Michael, 2023. "The impacts of lockdown on open source software contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    16. Fang, Tony & Lin, Carl & Tang, Xueli, 2024. "Where did the time go? The effects of China's two-day weekend policy on labor supply, household work, and wages," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237938. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.