ASH Briefing: Electronic Cigarettes
January 2013
Summary
•
E-cigarettes are evolving and there is increasing evidence to suggest that some if not all products provide effective nicotine delivery.
•
There is little real-world evidence of harm from e-cigarettes to date, especially in comparison to smoking.
•
E-cigarettes are used by both smokers and ex-smokers, but there is little evidence of use by those who have never smoked. •
ASH supports regulation to ensure the safety and reliability of e-cigarettes but, in the absence of harm to bystanders, does not consider it appropriate to include e-cigarettes under smokefree regulations.
•
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is currently reviewing options to regulate nicotine-containing products including e-cigarettes. Meanwhile, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is developing guidance on harm reduction, which will include electronic cigarettes, for publication in May 2013.
Nicotine Substitution
Smoking is the largest, preventable cause of premature mortality in the UK. The goal of public health is to diminish the harm caused by tobacco products. While the ideal remains that people should stop using tobacco completely and permanently, consensus currently supports a properly regulated harm reduction approach1 2 3 – a framework by which the harmful effects of smoking are reduced without requiring the elimination of a behaviour thnot necessarily condoned. Such strategies have proved successful in the past, for example within the contexts of needle exchange programmes for illicit drug use and the promotion of safer sex to prevent HIV inf45
In 1976 Professor Michael Russell wrote: “People smoke for nicotine but they die from the tar.” 6 Indeed, the harm from smoking is caused almost exclusively by toxins present in tobacco released through combustion. By contrast, pure nicotine products, although addictive, are considerably less harmful. Electronic cigarettes consequently represent a safer alternative to cigarettes for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop using nicotine.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently developing guidance on a harm reduction approach to smoking.7 NICE’s recommendations, to be published in spring 2013, aim to inform on how best to reduce illness and deaths attributable to smoking through a harm reduction approach. As part of this guidance, NICE will include recommendations on electronic cigarettes.
A draft review by the WHO’s Tobacco Regulatory Group in 2009 notes that the extent of nicotine uptake and the safety of e-cigarettes have yet to be fully established.8 Certainly, in the absence of thorough clinical evaluation and long term population level surveillance absolute safety of such products cannot be guaranteed. By comparison, the harm from tobacco smoking – the leading cause of preventable death in the UK – is well established.
Most of the safety concerns regarding electronic cigarettes relate to the absence of appropriate product regulation and inconsistencies in quality control. The current lack of any current authoritative oversight (although the MHRA is in the process of developing guidelines, see section on regulation)
ASH Briefing: Electronic cigarettes 2
means that there is significant variability in device effectiveness, nicotine delivery and cartridge nicotine content both between and sometimes within product brands.9 Furthermore, a recent study by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has raised some safety concerns over the presence of toxins, released in low concentrations, from the vaporisation process of certain cartridges.10 However, one study showed that after switching from tobacco to electronic cigarettes nicotine exposure was unchanged while exposure to selected toxicants was substantially reduced.11
There is little evidence of harmful effects from repeated exposure to propylene glycol, the chemical in which nicotine is suspended.12 13 One study concludes that e-cigarettes have a low toxicity profile, are well tolerated, and are associated with only mild adverse effects.14
Is there a risk to non-users from e-cigarette vapour?
Although e-cigarettes do not produce smoke, users exhale a smoke-like vapour which consists largely of water. Any health risks of secondhand exposure to propylene glycol vapour are likely to be limited to irritation of the throat. One study exposed animals to propylene glycol for 12 to 18 months at doses 50 to 700 times the level the animal could absorb through inhalation. Compared to animals living in normal room atmosphere, no localised or generalised irritation was found and kidney, liver, spleen and bone marrow were all found to be normal. 12
The fact that e-cigarettes look similar to conventional cigarettes has been said to risk confusion as to their use in public places, such as on public transport.15 16 However, given that the most distinctive feature of cigarette smoking is the smell of the smoke, which travels rapidly, and that this is absent from e-cigarette use, it is not clear how any such confusion would be sustained. Furthermore, the absence of risk from “secondhand” inhalation of vapour from e-cigarettes has been described as an “often unconsidered advantage” of e-cigarettes.17 As an alternative to smoking, e-cigarettes are preferable in situations where secondhand smoke poses serious health risks to others, such as in vehicles or in the home.
Are e-cigarettes effective?
The degree of effectiveness depends on what effect is being measured. While public health professionals may be most concerned about their effectiveness in smoking cessation, the four benefits most widely perceived by smokers are the degree to which they satisfy the desire to smoke (60% of smokers), helping to cut down cigarettes (55%), help quit entirely (51%) and eradicating the smell of stale smoke (51%).18 19 Effectiveness also varies between products and between users according to their experience in use.20
Currently in the UK, any nicotine-containing product which claims or implies that it can treat nicotine addiction is considered to be a medicinal product and is therefore subject to regulation by the MHRA. Consequently, e-cigarette manufacturers have avoided making such explicit claims. Furthermore, the
ASH Briefing: Electronic cigarettes 3
WHO has stated that “the electronic cigarette is not a proven nicotine replacement therapy”.21
Nevertheless, survey data suggests that about 4 in10 18 users do utilise them in an attempt to quit smoking and internet searches for the devices now exceed those for any other smoking cessation or nicotine replacement product. 22 There is some evidence to suggest that e-cigarette use leads to abstinence among some smokers who had not intended to quit.23
Empirical data on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a stop-smoking aid is limited and the risks and benefits are still being studied. Some reports from the published literature suggest that electronic cigarettes are inefficient nicotine delivery devices and result in only modest and unreliable increases in plasma nicotine levels.24 Such findings appear to apply particularly to new users whereas studies using participants experienced in e-cigarette use have been found to derive more reliable nicotine intake levels.14 Whether experienced users are able to use these devices in a way in which their nicotine intake is maximised, or the variability is down to such users preferring certain devices which might significantly differ from those used by inexperienced users, is yet to be determined.25, 26
Nevertheless, growing evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are becoming more reliable in their nicotine delivery and that they have a beneficial impact in reducing subjective cravings and, in turn, number of cigarettes smoked.14 Moreover, some studies have demonstrated an ability for certain brands of e-cigarettes to reduce subjective nicotine cravings despite delivering low plasma nicotine levels.27
Another feature of e-cigarettes that apparently lends to their effectiveness is an ability to satisfy the “hand to mouth” behavioural component that is not sufficiently addressed in more traditional nicotine replacement therapies. This has been demonstrated by users exhibiting reduced cravings, withdrawal symptoms and number of cigarettes smoked per day even when given a placebo e-cigarette.14
The potential value, and perceived effectiveness, of electronic cigarettes in aiding smoking cessation has been assessed in user surveys. Caution must be exercised with this data as the sample was recruited from e-cigarette users’ websites. However, one such survey conducted internationally reported that 72% of users believed that e-cigarettes were beneficial in reducing cravings and withdrawal symptoms while 92% declared that the devices had reduced the number of conventional cigarettes they smoked. Indeed, in the same survey, 96% of former smokers claimed that e-cigarettes had helped them quit, and 79% reported a fear that if they stopped using them they would start smoking again.9
Who uses e-cigarettes in the UK?
Public awareness of e-cigarettes has grown substantially in recent years with online media playing an integral role in the growing popularity of the product.
ASH Briefing: Electronic cigarettes 4
Between the years 2009 and 2011 searches via the search engine Google using the terms ‘electronic cigarette’ increased by fifty fold,28 a fact the industry has attempted to capitalise on by funding various online adverts, web-pages and social networking site groups.29 In addition to the influence of online media, there is also evidence to suggest that tighter tobacco control measures are also positively driving e-cigarette behaviour.30
According to an ASH YouGov survey awareness of electronic cigarettes has been increasing. For example, the percentage of smokers reporting in ASH YouGov surveys that they had never heard of e-cigarettes fell from 38% in 2010 to 21% in 2012.31 Contemporaneous with this increased awareness has been an apparent doubling in the proportion of people reporting using the devices. According to a survey commissioned by ASH, 3% of smokers reported using e-cigarettes in 2010, a figure that increased to 7% in 2012. Similarly, the number of people reporting having tried e-cigarettes has increased significantly, more than doubling from 9% in 2010 to 22% in 2012 (see figure 1).
ASH estimates that there are 650,000 to 700,000 current users of e-cigarettes in the UK. This number is almost entirely made of current and ex-smokers; with perhaps as many as 125,000 people having replaced smoking with e-cigarette use. There is little evidence to suggest that anything more than a negligible number of non-smokers regularly use the product. 31 32 Percentage of current smokers using e-cigarettes73922051015202520102012Currently use e-cigarettesHave ever tried e-cigarettes
Figure 1. Source: YouGov
ASH Briefing: Electronic cigarettes 5
Regulation
Currently, e-cigarettes are not regulated under smokefree law in the UK, and users are free to use them in public places such as bars, restaurants and on public transport.
An oft quoted advantage of smokefree legislation is that it de-normalises smoking, effectively distancing the behaviour from what is an accepted social norm. The ban on smoking in public places has reinforced in many people’s minds that such behaviour has gone from a normal, widely accepted activity to one that is abnormal and unaccepted. There are concerns that e-cigarettes will undermine this process, threatening the now established practice of smokefree public places, such as at work or on public transport. However to date there is little evidence to suggest this is the case.
E-cigarettes are subject to general consumer protection Iaw and it is the responsibility of trading standards officers to rule on their safety. In 2010, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) held a public consultation on whether nicotine-containing products such as e-cigarettes should be regulated.33 Following this initial analysis a period of further research was commissioned, coordinated by the MHRA, and informed upon by an expert working group of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM). This additional research will lead to a final decision being made in 2013. In the interim, the MHRA is working with e-cigarette manufacturers to develop a self-regulatory code of practice to foster high standards within the industry.
As well as the MHRA review, and following a referral from the Department of Health, NICE will publish its own guidance on e-cigarettes as part of a broader consultation on tobacco harm reduction, the results of which are expected to be published in May 2013. There is also a proposal to regulate nicotine- containing products as part of the revised EU Tobacco Products Directive.34
Conclusion
ASH believes that e-cigarettes, properly regulated to ensure safety and efficacy, should be made available as part of a harm reduction approach to tobacco. That is, we recognise that whilst efforts to help people stop smoking should remain a priority, many people either do not wish to stop smoking or find it very hard to do so. For this group, nicotine substitution products should be made available that deliver nicotine in a safe way, without the harmful components found in tobacco smoke. Most of the diseases associated with smoking are caused by inhaling smoke which contains thousands of toxic chemicals. By contrast, nicotine is relatively safe.
ASH Briefing: Electronic cigarettes 6
ASH Briefing: Electronic cigarettes 7
E-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the harmful toxins found in tobacco smoke, are likely to be a safer alternative to smoking. In addition, e-cigarettes reduce secondhand smoke exposure in places where smoking is allowed since they do not produce smoke. Nonetheless, nicotine is an addictive substance, e-cigarettes currently available are of highly variable safety and efficacy, and smokers are uncertain about the effectiveness of the product.
In the UK smokefree legislation exists to protect the public from the demonstrable harms of secondhand smoke. ASH does not consider it appropriate for electronic cigarettes to be subject to this legislation.
References
1 Royal College of Physicians. Harm reduction in nicotine addiction: helping people who can’t quit. A report by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. London: RCP, 2007.
2 Action on Smoking and Health. Beyond Smoking Kills: Protecting Children, Reducing Inequalities. London: ASH, 2008
3 British Medical Association. E-cigarettes in public places and workplaces. A briefing from the BMA Occupational Medicine Committee and the Board of Science. London: BMA, 2012
4 Hurley S, Jolley D and Kaldor J. Effectiveness of needle-exchange programmes for prevention of HIV infection. The Lancet 1997; 349:1797-1800
5 Weller, S. A Meta-analysis of condom effectiveness in reducing sexually transmitted HIV. Soc. Sci. Med. 1993;36:1635-1644
6 Russell M. Low-tar medium-nicotine cigarettes: a new approach to safer smoking. British Medical Journal 1976;1:1430-1433
7 Tobacco - Harm reduction NICE, 2012
8 Draft Abbreviated Advisory of the WHO Study Group on tobacco product regulation
(WHO TobReg) concerning Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), 2009
9 Goniewicz ML, Kuma T, Gawron M, Knysak J, Kosmider L. Nicotine levels in electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res 2013;15:158-66
10 Westenberger BJ. US Food and Drug Administration: evaluation of e-cigarettes. St Louis, MO: US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis. 2009.
11 Goniewicz ML, Gawron J, Jacob P, Peng M, Benowitz N. Electronic cigarettes deliver similar levels of nicotine and reduce exposure to combustion toxicants after switching from tobacco cigarettes. Presented at the 18th annual meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, Houston, March 13-16, 2012, 40, NIPA-1
12 Robertson OH, Loosli CG, Puck TT et al. Tests for the chronic toxicity of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol on monkeys and rats by vapour inhalation and oral administration. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1947; 91: 52–76.
13 Electronic cigarettes: A safe substitute? New Scientist 11 Feb 2009
ASH Briefing: Electronic cigarettes 8
14 Bullen C, McRobie H, Thornley S, et al. Effect of an electronic cigarette on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomized cross-over trial. Tobacco Control 2010; 19: 98–103
15 King County bans public e-cigarette smoking. Seattlepi.com 15 Dec. 2010
16 Wirral pensioner kicked off public transport because of his electronic cigarette. Wirral News. 20 July 2012
17 Wagener TL, Siegel M, Borelli B. Electronic Cigarettes: Achieving a balanced perspective. Addiction 2012; 107: 91545-1548
18 Survey of smokers’ attitudes to e-cigarettes. YouGov 2010. Total sample size was 1380 UK adult smokers. Respondents were pre-screened for e-cigarette use such that 486 respondents had tried e-cigarettes and 894 respondents had not tried e-cigarettes. Fieldwork was undertaken between 9th - 16th April 2010. The survey was carried out online. The figures are unweighted.
19 Goniewicz ML, Lingas EO, Hajek P. Patterns and effects of electronic cigarettes use and users beliefs about their safety and benefits. An internet survey. Drug Alcohol Rev 2013; in press
20 Foulds J, Veldheer S, & Berg A. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs): Views of aficionados and clinical/public health perspectives. Int J Clinical Practice 2011; 65: 1037–1042
21 World Health Organization. Report on the scientific basis of tobacco product regulation: third report of a WHO study group. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2009.
22 Etter J & Bullen C. Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction 2011; 106: 2017–28.
23 Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Morjaria JB. et al. Effect of electronic nicotine delivery device (e-cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 786. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-786
24 Vansickel AR, Cobb CO, Weaver MF, Eissenberg TE. A clinical laboratory model for evaluating the acute effects of electronic ‘cigarettes’: nicotine delivery profile and cardiovascular and subjective effects. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19: 1945–53
25 Foulds J, Veldheer S, & Berg A. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs): Views of aficionados and clinical/public health perspectives. Int J Clinical Practice 2011; 65: 1037–1042
26 Trtchounian A, Williams M, & Talbot P. Conventional and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have different smoking characteristics. Nic & Tob Research 2011; 12: 905–912
27 Eissenberg T. Electronic nicotine delivery devices: ineffective nicotine delivery and craving suppression after acute administration. Tobacco Control 2010; 19: 87–8
28 Yamin CK, Bitton A, & Bates DW. E-cigarettes: a rapidly growing Internet phenomenon. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153:607–9
29 Noel JK, Rees VW, Connolly GN. Electronic cigarettes: a new ‘tobacco’ industry?
Tob Control 2011; 20: 81
30 Ayers JW, Ribisl KM, Brownstein JS. Tracking the rise in popularity of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (electronic cigarettes) using search query surveillance. Am J Prev Med 2011; 40: 448–53
ASH Briefing: Electronic cigarettes 9
31 Dockrell M, Morrison R & McNeill A. E-cigarettes: Prevalence and attitudes in Great Britain. Nicotine & Tobacco Research In press.
32 Goniewicz ML, Zielinska-Danch W. Electronic cigarette use among teenagers and young adults in Poland. Pediatrics 2012; 130: e879-85.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2298787433 Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Outcome of consultation exercise MLX364 on the regulation of nicotine containing products (NCPs). London, MHRA, 2011.
34 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and
related products. Dec. 2012
ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/com_2012_788_en.pdf
Proud mummy to; 
