电子烟戒烟效果。
The Effectiveness of E-Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation.
机构信息
Institute of General Practice (ifam), Addiction Research and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Centre for Health and Society (chs), Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf; Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
出版信息
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2022 Apr 29;119(17):297-301. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0162.
BACKGROUND
Our primary aim was to assess-in the German population-the effectiveness of e-cigarettes (ECs; with or without nicotine), nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and no use of evidence-based aids in smoking cessation.
METHODS
Analysis of cross-sectional data from a representative survey of the population (age 14-96 years) conducted in 2016-2021. All current smokers and recent ex-smokers (< 12 months since quitting) who had made ≥ 1 attempt to quit in the past 12 months (n = 2740) were included. They were asked about use of cessation aids in their most recent quit attempt and their current smoking status.
RESULTS
Two hundred thirty-nine respondents had used ECs, 168 NRT, and 2333 no aid. After adjustment for potential confounders, the odds of abstinence were 1.78 times higher for smokers who had used ECs in their quit attempt than in the group that had used no aids (95% confidence interval [1.09; 2.92]; p = 0.02) and 1.46 times higher than in the NRT group ([0.68; 3.13]; p = 0.34, Bayes factor = 1.26). Compared with the unaided group, the odds of abstinence were 2.34 times higher ([1.21; 4.53]; p = 0.01) in the subgroup using ECs with nicotine and 1.48 times higher ([0.68; 3.26]; p = 0.33) in the subgroup using ECs without nicotine. The unadjusted abstinence rates in people who had started their quit attempt > 6 months earlier were 15.6% [9.4; 23.8] in the ECs group and 13.8% [7.3; 22.9] in the NRT group.
CONCLUSION
In Germany, use of ECs in an attempt to quit smoking is associated with a higher rate of abstinence than attempting to quit unaided.
背景
我们的主要目的是评估德国人群中电子烟（含或不含尼古丁）、尼古丁替代疗法（NRT）和不使用基于证据的戒烟辅助工具在戒烟中的效果。
方法
分析 2016-2021 年进行的一项具有代表性的人群调查（年龄 14-96 岁）的横断面数据。所有当前吸烟者和最近戒烟者（戒烟后<12 个月），在过去 12 个月内至少尝试过一次戒烟（n=2740），均被纳入研究。他们被问及在最近一次戒烟尝试中使用戒烟辅助工具的情况和当前的吸烟状况。
结果
239 名受访者使用过电子烟，168 名使用过 NRT，2333 名未使用任何辅助工具。在调整潜在混杂因素后，与未使用辅助工具的组相比，在戒烟尝试中使用电子烟的吸烟者戒烟的几率高 1.78 倍（95%置信区间 [1.09；2.92]；p=0.02），而与 NRT 组相比高 1.46 倍（[0.68；3.13]；p=0.34，贝叶斯因子=1.26）。与未使用辅助工具的组相比，使用含尼古丁电子烟的亚组的戒烟几率高 2.34 倍（[1.21；4.53]；p=0.01），使用不含尼古丁电子烟的亚组的戒烟几率高 1.48 倍（[0.68；3.26]；p=0.33）。在戒烟尝试开始>6 个月的人群中，电子烟组的未调整戒烟率为 15.6%[9.4；23.8]，NRT 组为 13.8%[7.3；22.9]。
结论
在德国，使用电子烟尝试戒烟与更高的戒烟率相关，而不使用任何辅助工具尝试戒烟的效果较差。
Zotero 插件