This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pulse june2020 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

GPs go forth

E-cigarettes mustn't be licensed as medicines

Licensing e-cigarettes as medicines may put them beyond patients’ budget, warns Dr John Ashcroft, which would prevent them accessing what some call the biggest public health breakthrough in 100 years

Could cheap electronic cigarettes really be ‘perhaps the single most important public health breakthrough this century?’. Certainly Professor Robert West, one of the UK’s top experts in tobacco control seems to think so, and he is not alone with most of the experts in the field seeing huge opportunities ‘to legislate cigarettes out of existence’.

Alternative forms of taking nicotine instead of smoking a cigarette have been around for many years. NRT has been around for over 20 years, comes in many different forms and is widely available, and there are other ways of taking tobacco that have been around for hundreds of years, like chewing tobacco and snuff, which (though may not be totally safe) carry little risk.

But smokers are switching to ‘e-cigs’ in huge numbers. Some estimates indicate there are probably 1.3 million current users, up from 500,000 users just a year ago. Some will be mixing e-cigarette consumption with cigarette-smoking but most are eventually moving to just using a e-cigarette as their sole mode of getting their nicotine.

Every year the NHS Stop Smoking services currently help about 400,000 smokers to quit for a four-week period, but only one in four will become a long-term quitter and probably many of these smokers would have quit on their own. By that working, e-cigarettes may be delivering 10 times the number of extra quitters as the NHS.

E-cigarette smokers are still addicted to nicotine, but relatively speaking nicotine is a very safe drug. How many children do we find dead behind the bike shed after their first cigarette? Even in the worst case scenario - say, primary school children with no nicotine tolerance using the most potent of nicotine delivery devices, the cigarette, and egged on to the point of toxic overdose in the most in appropriate of environments- nicotine is very safe. And it’s very safe even long term. It is the products of combustion - tar and carbon monoxide - that makes a cigarette so dangerous in the long-term. But it is because smokers are still getting their nicotine hit that they are finding it easy to switch.

The other reason it’s easy to switch is cost - using e-cigarettes can be cheap - but then agaon, so can using cigarettes. A 20-a-day cigarette smoker would easily spend £50 a week feeding their addiction with shop-bought cigarettes, but most of my patients smoke using rolling tobacco, duty-free cigarettes or smuggled tobacco. A 20-a-day smoker using smuggled rolling tobacco may only be spending £8 a week. This is why we are probably not seeing patients from deprived areas qutting with the same success as patients from affluent area, and why we are not seeing much NRT substitution.

The new NICE guidance on harm-reduction approaches to smoking may, in theory, result in GPs prescribing NRT in an effort to reduce the damage of smoking, but does any of us really believe that of the UK’s 10-12million smokers, the NHS is going to start treating four or five million smokers with £500’s worth of NRT a year?

E-cigarettes, on the other hand, are a cheap alternative to cigarette smoking - and one financed by the ‘quitter’. Disposable e-cigarettes are what many smokers try before NRT, and at £30 a week for the equivalent of 20 a day, are cheaper than shop-bought cigarettes (although not much).

Smokers tend to quickly move to vaporisers or cartomisers (e-cigarettes with refill cartridges). These options cost around £10 to £20 for a starter kit and then £3 a week for nicotine ‘juice’ for the vaporisers or £7 a week for refills for the cartomisers.

But the MHRA has decided to regulate e-cigarettes. Some anti-smoking campaigners such as ASH have argued it should, but the decision was questionable. Nicotine in e-cigarettes maybe a drug but it isn’t being used as a medicine. The MHRA doesn’t regulate other drugs when they aren’t being used as medicines, for instance caffeine and alcohol.

After two years of deliberating, the MHRA decided they would regulate e-cigarettes in three years’ time - recognisign that we haven’t seen any significant safety problems with e-cigs, and that there would be huge public health gains if smokers switch to a safer alternative while e-cigarettes are unlicensed.

The regulation of e-cigarettes will inevitably drive up the costs and drive out the smaller players in the market - the big players will be the big pharmaceutical firms and big tobacco. At least one of the large tobacco firm is close to licensing an electronic cigarette with the MHRA.

The risk is that we make e-cigarettes more like NRT - safe but expensive. In three short years we may find the cheap e-cigarettes, that so many of our smokers are turning to now, will be banned.

The logical outcome of the NICE guidance, and the MHRA decision is the GPs may find themselves prescribing expensive NRT or electronic nicotine delivery systems for harm reduction at a huge cost to the NHS.

Our prescribing will at the same time increase the profits of tobacco firms selling expensive MHRA-licensed nicotine delivery systems.

Dr John Ashcroft is a GP in Derbyshire

Readers' comments (16)

  • The main problem with regulation as a medicine is that they are not, actually, a medicine. E-cigs replace cigarette smoking with something that poses a risk two orders of magnitude lower than smoking lit tobacco. Any over-regulation that makes them less easy to obtain (or more expensive) than tobacco cigarettes will, effectively, promote smokers staying smokers. GPs should pressure the BMA and RCP to fully support the removal of the MHRA's daft move to medicinalise e-cigs - it's counterproductive.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is pertinent to add that the MHRA is funded primarily by Pharmaceutical companies, used data from BAT to justify the potential safety concerns of e-cigs and finally and perhaps more importantly there has been no actual health concerns or safety problems associated with the use of e-cigs after 4 years of worldwide use, yet Chantix a medically regulated NRT product has actually killed people. This isn't about public health and tobacco harm reduction, but big business and links with politics..

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Meds regulation is a disaster for users and for the UK's fledgling electronic cigarette industry. It removes consumer choice and the huge pay to play licencing structure will destroy the small innovative businesses that worked so hard to make these products successful.

    A lot of people will go back to smoking if all they can get hold of is a fractionally safer product that is boring and comes in a small range of flavours.

    Meds regulation is a disaster waiting to happen. It has to be stopped.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • More regulation=more tax-take? Suspect this may be part of the plan! After all, look how much tax revenue smokers provide! 'They' won't want to lose that!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The whole reason e-cigarettes work is that they're NOT medicines. They're marketed on their performance, ease of use and style, not their medical efficacy. They're attractive products that people want to switch to. Take that away and they'll fail. When was the last time you saw a forum where people discussed the best nicotine patch?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Regulation of E-Cigs would be the biggest health disaster ever, it would make them to expensive and the Nicotine levels suggested would make them as ineffective as the current NRT available.
    The net result would be extra costs to the already cash strapped NHS in prescription's and the greater financial burden as most of the 1.3 million E-Cig users go back to the biggest health threat Tobacco.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • E-cigarettes have been shown to work due to the users ability to self administer as and when, and at a strength they choose. This is a perfect fit for the smoking habit which allows the user the same freedoms, and recent studies (Vansickel and Eisenberg (2013) ) have shown this to be the case. Every smoker has a different habit, with myriad usage variables due to their individuality. It is not possible ti produce 'one for all'. Medicalisation of ECigs will remove the attractiveness to smokers and thus is manifestly counterintuitive and irresponsible. I urge respectable GP's who champion public health to write to their respective organisations and explain the truth: ECigs will save lives as they currently exist.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with the above comments that essentially ecigs save lives. Categorising them as medicines will be a health disaster and simply cannot be justified.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Such a stupid decision. How can a substitute cigarette be a medicine? After 60+ years of smoking I switched to the e-cig more than 3 years ago - I had no intention of quitting nicotine having a family history of dementia and being aware of its use in treatment. That my pulmonary problems improved was a huge bonus, I no longer need Salmeterol and just one pull on Iprotropium at night to be "on the safe side". Not an antibiotic or oral steroid in three years. That still doesn't make it a medicine - I vape, as I smoked , purely for pleasure
    and shall continue to do so - at my own expense unless this monstrous travesty is allowed to continue.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A well reasoned article I thought, are there any other consumer devices, apart from as is proposed by the MHRA the ecigarette, which require medical authorisation to be sold?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say