Efforts to help people quit vaping may be more effective than previously believed, according to a new review, but the evidence remains limited and inconsistent. A meta-analysis published in Tobacco Control has provided the first rigorous assessment of how interventions such as educational tools, digital apps and pharmacological aids perform in supporting vaping cessation.
The review pooled data from seven randomised controlled trials involving more than 5,700 participants, many of them young adults and exclusive e-cigarette users. Researchers found that participants who received any form of intervention were 52% more likely to achieve short-term abstinence from vaping when compared with those who received no support. Some interventions also showed promise for promoting longer-term abstinence.
Pharmacological treatments such as nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline were among the most effective, increasing the odds of quitting more than twofold. Educational tools such as targeted booklets also showed a significant benefit. Digital interventions, such as text messaging and smartphone apps, had less consistent outcomes but still trended positively.
The findings come amid ongoing public health concerns over the growing popularity of electronic nicotine delivery systems, especially among younger people. Around 15% of individuals aged 15 and over globally have tried vaping, with the highest rates among those aged 15 to 24. In countries like Canada and the United States, youth usage has soared in recent years.
Despite perceptions that vaping may be a safer alternative to smoking, concerns remain over its effects on lung health, the cardiovascular system and brain development. Some formulations contain high levels of nicotine, and cases of severe lung injury linked to vaping have been documented. The lack of long-term safety data and the increasing prevalence of vaping in non-smokers, particularly among young people, have led many experts to call for stronger regulatory and clinical guidance.
What this latest analysis highlights is the potential role of structured interventions to help users quit. The strongest results were seen for seven-day point prevalence abstinence, which measures short-term quitting. Longer durations, such as 30-day abstinence and continuous abstinence over several months, showed improvement but with greater uncertainty due to limited data.
The review also underscored gaps in the research. Many studies used self-reported data rather than biochemical verification, and long-term follow-up was rare. Only one trial verified quitting through biological testing. Additionally, most interventions studied were only tested in adults, meaning their relevance for teenagers or younger users remains unclear.
With vaping now entrenched in youth culture and perceptions of harm relatively low, the need for effective and evidence-based cessation strategies is more urgent than ever. The researchers called for larger, more rigorous trials that measure outcomes consistently over time and consider age-specific needs.
There is also the issue of accessibility. Many of the digital tools studied are not available outside North America, and pharmacological treatments are not officially approved for vaping cessation in most countries, which restricts their use in clinical settings.
Still, the review offers cautious optimism. Even modest improvements in quit rates could translate to significant public health benefits if applied on a wide scale. More importantly, the findings provide a foundation for future research and may prompt policy-makers to consider investing in cessation services specifically tailored for vaping.
