Cited by 29Smoking Behavior and CessationPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsPregnancy and Medication Impact

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

Open access
Pesola, Francesca, Smith, Katie Myers, Phillips‐Waller, Anna, Przulj, Dunja, Griffiths, Christopher, Walton, Robert, McRobbie, Hayden, Coleman, Tim +12 more·2024·Addiction

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.16422

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The RCT initially compared safety outcomes for those allocated to the vaping and NRT arms and then, in a secondary analysis, compared outcomes for those who were not smoking and who did or did not regularly use nicotine products (vaping or NRT, combined) during pregnancy.

    “The RCT initially compared safety outcomes for those allocated to the vaping and NRT arms [16] and then, in a secondary analysis, compared outcomes for those who were not smoking and who did or did not regularly use nicotine products (i.e., vaping or NRT, combined) during pregnancy [57].”
  • When the RCT compared those abstinent from smoking and regularly vaping or using NRT with those not using these products, irrespective of trial arm, non-users had significantly more overall adverse outcomes and there were no significant differences for caesarean section rates.

    “When the RCT compared those abstinent from smoking and regularly vaping or using NRT with those not using these products, irrespective of trial arm, non-users had significantly more overall adverse outcomes and there were no significant differences for caesarean section rates [57].”
  • The RCT reported that, irrespective of trial arm, exclusive-smokers had gestational age similar to those who dual-used smoking in combination with vaping or NRT.

    “The RCT reported that, irrespective of trial arm, exclusive-smokers had rates of PTB and GA similar to those who dual-used smoking in combination with vaping or NRT [57].”
  • The RCT reported that, irrespective of trial arm, exclusive-smokers had rates of preterm birth similar to those who dual-used smoking in combination with vaping or NRT.

    “The RCT reported that, irrespective of trial arm, exclusive-smokers had rates of PTB and GA similar to those who dual-used smoking in combination with vaping or NRT [57].”
  • The RCT found that, irrespective of trial arm, gestational age was similar between those who reported smoking cessation and the use of NRT or vaping and those reporting cessation and no use of these products.

    “; GA was similar in these two groups.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pesola, F., Smith, K. M., Phillips‐Waller, A., Przulj, D., Griffiths, C., Walton, R., McRobbie, H., Coleman, T., Lewis, S., Whitemore, R., Clark, M., Ussher, M., Sinclair, L., Seager, E., Cooper, S., Bauld, L., Naughton, F., Sasieni, P., Manyonda, I., & Hajek, P.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Centre for Academic Primary Care University of Nottingham Nottingham UK
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Wolfson Institute of Population Health Queen Mary University of London London UK
Corresponding author
Pesola, Francesca
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-01-17
Volume
119
Issue
5
Pages
875-884
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W4390951188
Cited by
29
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8
FWCI
8.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Health Technology Assessment Programme (15/57/85)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
Keywords
electronic cigarettes, nicotine patch, nicotine replacement therapy, smoking cessation during pregnancy, prenatal nicotine exposure, birth weight, salivary cotinine, cough, sputum, pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal mental health, maternal anxiety
MeSH terms
Birth Weight, Cotinine, Female, Humans, Nicotine, Pregnancy, Recurrence, Smoking, Smoking Cessation, Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review