Efficacy of the nicotine inhaler in smoking reduction: A double-blind, randomized trial

Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating nicotine, cotinine and carbon monoxide exposures in people who both smoke and use nicotine replacement therapy

AIMS

To determine effects of concurrent smoking and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use on reported heaviness of smoking, nicotine (cotinine) body fluid and exhaled air carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, which test interventions permitting concurrent NRT use and smoking and comparing, within participants, outcomes when smoking with those when smoking and using NRT concurrently. Measurements included reported number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), body fluid cotinine and expired air CO concentrations.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the review. Meta-analysis of nine showed that, compared with when solely smoking, fewer cigarettes were smoked daily when NRT was used (mean difference during concurrent smoking and NRT use, -2.06 CPD [95% CI = -3.06 to -1.07, P < 0.0001]). Meta-analysis of seven studies revealed a non-significant reduction in exhaled CO during concurrent smoking and NRT use (mean difference, -0.58 ppm [95% CI = -2.18 to 1.03, P = 0.48]), but in the three studies that tested NRT used in the lead-up to quitting (i.e. as preloading), a similar reduction in exhaled CO was statistically significant (mean difference, -2.54 ppm CO [95% CI = -4.14 to -0.95, P = 0.002]). Eleven studies reported cotinine concentrations, but meta-analysis was not possible because of data reporting heterogeneity; of these, seven reported lower cotinine concentrations with concurrent NRT use and smoking, four reported no differences, and none reported higher concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

People who smoke and also use nicotine replacement therapy report smoking less heavily than people who solely smoke. When nicotine replacement therapy is used in the lead-up to quitting (preloading), this reported smoking reduction has been biochemically confirmed. There is no evidence that concurrent smoking and nicotine replacement therapy use result in greater nicotine exposure than solely smoking.

The Effects of Scheduled Smoking Reduction and Precessation Nicotine Replacement Therapy on Smoking Cessation: Randomized Controlled Trial With Compliance

BACKGROUND

Smoking remains a major public health problem, and it is important to provide a variety of efficacious and appealing options to encourage smokers to quit smoking. Scheduled smoking is a method of gradual reduction, preparing smokers to quit by systematically reducing cigarette consumption according to a predetermined schedule that increases the time between cigarette consumption. Gradual reduction may be preferred to abrupt quitting, but the efficacy of this cessation approach is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims, first, to evaluate the overall effectiveness of scheduled smoking alone, or in combination with precessation nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), versus standard NRT starting on the quit date with no prior smoking reduction and, second, to evaluate the impact of schedule compliance on the effectiveness of the intervention.

METHODS

A total of 916 participants recruited from the Houston metropolitan area were randomly assigned to 1 of the following 3 groups: scheduled smoking plus a precessation nicotine patch (n=306, 33.4%), scheduled smoking only with no precessation patch (n=309, 33.7%), and enhanced usual care (n=301, 32.9%) control. The primary abstinence outcomes were carbon monoxide-verified, self-reported, 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 2 and 4 weeks after the quit date. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the intervention effect. Scheduled smoking was implemented using a handheld device for 3 weeks before quitting. This trial was not registered because data collection began before July 1, 2005.

RESULTS

Results for the first aim showed no overall differences in abstinence among the 3 groups in both the unadjusted and adjusted models. However, the results for the second aim showed a clear effect on abstinence by schedule compliance at 2 and 4 weeks and 6 months after quitting (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.31-3.07), 4 weeks (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.05-2.38), and 6 months (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.64), with the differences at 2 and 4 weeks after quitting being the most robust. We also found that scheduled smoking was related to a reduction in nicotine withdrawal, negative affect, and craving when compared with the controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Scheduled smoking, when combined with precessation use of NRT, can result in significantly higher abstinence rates than usual care (abrupt quitting with NRT), particularly in the early postquit phase (2 and 4 weeks after cessation) when smokers are compliant with the procedure. Scheduled smoking also produced a better overall quitting experience by reducing symptoms of nicotine withdrawal and craving, in comparison with usual care, which could encourage future quit attempts. Studies in this area should focus on the use of counseling or other methods to improve adherence.

Body-Weight Gain in Women During Smoking Cessation Is a Sex-Specific Predictor of 6-Month Abstinence: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Smoking behavior differs between the sexes. Weight control is one of the main reasons leading to tobacco abuse in women but not in men. Studies on the predictive factors of cessation failure between sexes are scarce. This study is aim to investigate whether there are sex differences in the effect of weight gain on smoking cessation rate.

Methods

Participants in the smoking-cessation program at a Medical Center in Taiwan between 2018 and 2019 were included. Details of age, sex, comorbidities, depression screening, nicotine dependence, body weight, and cessation medications of the participants were collected. The participants were classified based on their sex, and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed for sensitivity analysis after stratifying the participants according to their weight loss (weight loss ≥ 1.5 kg and weight loss ≥ 3.0 kg).

Results

A total of 1,475 participants were included. The body-weight gain in women was associated with failed abstinence (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 3.10, 95% CI: 1.10–9.04). In contrast, body-weight gain in men was associated with successful 6-month prolonged abstinence (adjusted OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.61–0.98). The adjusted ORs for any body-weight loss, body-weight loss ≥1.5 kg, and body-weight loss ≥3.0 kg were 0.28 (95% CI: 0.09–0.88), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.03–0.55), and 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01–0.42), respectively.

Conclusion

Body-weight gain in women during a hospital-based smoking-cessation program is associated with abstinence failure. Further multicenter studies, including participants of different races and cultural backgrounds, are warranted.

Pesticide exposure in New Zealand school-aged children: Urinary concentrations of biomarkers and assessment of determinants

This study aimed to assess pesticide exposure and its determinants in children aged 5-14 years. Urine samples (n = 953) were collected from 501 participating children living in urban areas (participant n = 300), rural areas but not on a farm (n = 76), and living on a farm (n = 125). The majority provided two samples, one in the high and one in the low spraying season. Information on diet, lifestyle, and demographic factors was collected by questionnaire. Urine was analysed for 20 pesticide biomarkers by GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS. Nine analytes were detected in > 80% of samples, including six organophosphate insecticide metabolites (DMP, DMTP, DEP, DETP, TCPy, PNP), two pyrethroid insecticide metabolites (3-PBA, trans-DCCA), and one herbicide (2,4-D). The highest concentration was measured for TCPy (median 13 μg/g creatinine), a metabolite of chlorpyrifos and triclopyr, followed by DMP (11 μg/g) and DMTP (3.7 μg/g). Urine metabolite levels were generally similar or low compared to those reported for other countries, while relatively high for TCPy and pyrethroid metabolites. Living on a farm was associated with higher TCPy levels during the high spray season. Living in rural areas, dog ownership and in-home pest control were associated with higher levels of pyrethroid metabolites. Urinary concentrations of several pesticide metabolites were higher during the low spraying season, possibly due to consumption of imported fruits and vegetables. Organic fruit consumption was not associated with lower urine concentrations, but consumption of organic food other than fruit or vegetables was associated with lower concentrations of TCPy in the high spray season. In conclusion, compared to other countries such as the U.S., New Zealand children had relatively high exposures to chlorpyrifos/triclopyr and pyrethroids. Factors associated with exposure included age, season, area of residence, diet, in-home pest control, and pets.

Vaping-Associated Lung Injury: A Review

Since commercial development in 2003, the usage of modern electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) continues to increase amongst people who have never smoked, ex-smokers who have switched to e-cigarettes, and dual-users of both conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes. With such an increase in use, knowledge of the irritative, toxic and potential carcinogenic effects on the lungs is increasing. This review article will discuss the background of e-cigarettes, vaping devices and explore their popularity. We will further summarise the available literature describing the mechanism of lung injury caused by e-cigarette or vaping use.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Smoking reduction interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The standard way most people are advised to stop smoking is by quitting abruptly on a designated quit day. However, many people who smoke have tried to quit many times and may like to try an alternative method. Reducing smoking behaviour before quitting could be an alternative approach to cessation. However, before this method can be recommended it is important to ensure that abrupt quitting is not more effective than reducing to quit, and to determine whether there are ways to optimise reduction methods to increase the chances of cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions on long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies, using the terms: cold turkey, schedul*, cut* down, cut-down, gradual*, abrupt*, fading, reduc*, taper*, controlled smoking and smoking reduction. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 29 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which people who smoked were advised to reduce their smoking consumption before quitting smoking altogether in at least one trial arm. This advice could be delivered using self-help materials or behavioural support, and provided alongside smoking cessation pharmacotherapies or not. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of less than six months, where participants spontaneously reduced without being advised to do so, where the goal of reduction was not to quit altogether, or where participants were advised to switch to cigarettes with lower nicotine levels without reducing the amount of cigarettes smoked or the length of time spent smoking. We also excluded trials carried out in pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (no smoking cessation treatment, abrupt quitting interventions, and other reduction-to-quit interventions) and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, pre-quit smoking reduction, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and meta-analysed these where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 51 trials with 22,509 participants. Most recruited adults from the community using media or local advertising. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked an average of 23 cigarettes a day. We judged 18 of the studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to the five studies at low or to the 28 studies at unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results.We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, comparing the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment on cessation rates (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.38; I2 = 45%; 6 studies, 1599 participants). However, when comparing reduction-to-quit interventions with abrupt quitting (standard care) we found evidence that neither approach resulted in superior quit rates (RR 1. 01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.17; I2 = 29%; 22 studies, 9219 participants). We judged this estimate to be of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Subgroup analysis provided some evidence (P = 0.01, I2 = 77%) that reduction-to-quit interventions may result in more favourable quit rates than abrupt quitting if varenicline is used as a reduction aid. Our analysis comparing reduction using pharmacotherapy with reduction alone found low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency and imprecision, that reduction aided by pharmacotherapy resulted in higher quit rates (RR 1. 68, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.58; I2 = 78%; 11 studies, 8636 participants). However, a significant subgroup analysis (P < 0.001, I2 = 80% for subgroup differences) suggests that this may only be true when fast-acting NRT or varenicline are used (both moderate-certainty evidence) and not when nicotine patch, combination NRT or bupropion are used as an aid (all low- or very low-quality evidence). More evidence is likely to change the interpretation of the latter effects.Although there was some evidence from within-study comparisons that behavioural support for reduction to quit resulted in higher quit rates than self-help resources alone, the relative efficacy of various other characteristics of reduction-to-quit interventions investigated through within- and between-study comparisons did not provide any evidence that they enhanced the success of reduction-to-quit interventions. Pre-quit AEs, SAEs and nicotine withdrawal symptoms were measured variably and infrequently across studies. There was some evidence that AEs occurred more frequently in studies that compared reduction using pharmacotherapy versus no pharmacotherapy; however, the AEs reported were mild and usual symptoms associated with NRT use. There was no clear evidence that the number of people reporting SAEs, or changes in withdrawal symptoms, differed between trial arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that neither reduction-to-quit nor abrupt quitting interventions result in superior long-term quit rates when compared with one another. Evidence comparing the efficacy of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment was inconclusive and of low certainty. There is also low-certainty evidence to suggest that reduction-to-quit interventions may be more effective when pharmacotherapy is used as an aid, particularly fast-acting NRT or varenicline (moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence for any adverse effects of reduction-to-quit interventions was sparse, but available data suggested no excess of pre-quit SAEs or withdrawal symptoms. We downgraded the evidence across comparisons due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Future research should aim to match any additional components of multicomponent reduction-to-quit interventions across study arms, so that the effect of reduction can be isolated. In particular, well-conducted, adequately-powered studies should focus on investigating the most effective features of reduction-to-quit interventions to maximise cessation rates.

Nicotine pharmacokinetics of electronic cigarettes: A review of the literature

E-cigarettes are battery-powered electronic devices from which users can inhale nicotine following its aerosolisation from a liquid solution. Some regulators and public health bodies consider e-cigarettes as potentially playing a major role in tobacco harm reduction. Their ability to provide nicotine to smokers in both amount and in a manner and form generally similar to cigarette smoking have been proposed as key components to help smokers reduce or cease the use of combustible cigarettes. Nicotine pharmacokinetic studies of e-cigarettes have been performed for a number of years and are beginning to show how nicotine delivery is evolving as the products themselves evolve. In this review, we provide a critical overview of the literature to describe what is known about nicotine delivery from e-cigarettes. We will discuss how the progression of e-cigarette design, development, and user familiarity has allowed increases in nicotine availability to the user, in the context of how much and how rapidly nicotine is delivered during acute-use periods. This review will also provide insight into current research gaps and highlight the potential utility of modelling and the standardisation of methodologies used to assess nicotine delivery to facilitate identification of products that are best suited to displace cigarette smoking among adult smokers.

Smoking Cessation for Smokers Not Ready to Quit: Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

CONTEXT

To provide a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis on smoking interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit, a population that makes up approximately 32% of current smokers.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Twenty-two studies on pharmacological, behavioral, and combination smoking-cessation interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit (defined as those who reported they were not ready to quit at the time of the study) published between 2000 and 2017 were analyzed. The effectiveness (measured by the number needed to treat) and cost effectiveness (measured by costs per quit) of interventions were calculated. All data collection and analyses were performed in 2017.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Smoking interventions targeting smokers not ready to quit can be as effective as similar interventions for smokers ready to quit; however, costs of intervening on this group may be higher for some intervention types. The most cost-effective interventions identified for this group were those using varenicline and those using behavioral interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Updating clinical recommendations to provide cessation interventions for this group is recommended. Further research on development of cost-effective treatments and effective strategies for recruitment and outreach for this group are needed. Additional studies may allow for more nuanced comparisons of treatment types among this group.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Interventions to reduce harm from continued tobacco use

BACKGROUND

Although smoking cessation is currently the only guaranteed way to reduce the harm caused by tobacco smoking, a reasonable secondary tobacco control approach may be to try and reduce the harm from continued tobacco use amongst smokers unable or unwilling to quit. Possible approaches to reduce the exposure to toxins from smoking include reducing the amount of tobacco used, and using less toxic products, such as pharmaceutical, nicotine and potential reduced-exposure tobacco products (PREPs), as an alternative to cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions intended to reduce the harm to health of continued tobacco use, we considered the following specific questions: do interventions intended to reduce harm have an effect on long-term health status?; do they lead to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked?; do they have an effect on smoking abstinence?; do they have an effect on biomarkers of tobacco exposure?; and do they have an effect on biomarkers of damage caused by tobacco?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Trials Register (CRS) on the 21st October 2015, using free-text and MeSH terms for harm reduction, smoking reduction and cigarette reduction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions to reduce the amount smoked, or to reduce harm from smoking by means other than cessation. We include studies carried out in smokers with no immediate desire to quit all tobacco use. Primary outcomes were change in cigarette consumption, smoking cessation and any markers of damage or benefit to health, measured at least six months from the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed study eligibility for inclusion using standard Cochrane methods. We pooled trials with similar interventions and outcomes (> 50% reduction in cigarettes a day (CPD) and long-term smoking abstinence), using fixed-effect models. Where it was not possible to meta-analyse data, we summarized findings narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four trials evaluated interventions to help those who smoke to cut down the amount smoked or to replace their regular cigarettes with PREPs, compared to placebo, brief intervention, or a comparison intervention. None of these trials directly tested whether harm reduction strategies reduced the harms to health caused by smoking. Most trials (14/24) tested nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as an intervention to assist reduction. In a pooled analysis of eight trials, NRT significantly increased the likelihood of reducing CPD by at least 50% for people using nicotine gum or inhaler or a choice of product compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44 to 2.13; 3081 participants). Where average changes from baseline were compared for different measures, carbon monoxide (CO) and cotinine generally showed smaller reductions than CPD. Use of NRT versus placebo also significantly increased the likelihood of ultimately quitting smoking (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.44; 8 trials, 3081 participants; quality of the evidence: low). Two trials comparing NRT and behavioural support to brief advice found a significant effect on reduction, but no significant effect on cessation. We found one trial investigating each of the following harm reduction intervention aids: bupropion, varenicline, electronic cigarettes, snus, plus another of nicotine patches to facilitate temporary abstinence. The evidence for all five intervention types was therefore imprecise, and it is unclear whether or not these aids increase the likelihood of smoking reduction or cessation. Two trials investigating two different types of behavioural advice and instructions on reducing CPD also provided imprecise evidence. Therefore, the evidence base for this comparison is inadequate to support the use of these types of behavioural advice to reduce smoking. Four studies of PREPs (cigarettes with reduced levels of tar, carbon and nicotine, and in one case delivered using an electronically-heated cigarette smoking system) showed some reduction in exposure to some toxicants, but it is unclear whether this would substantially alter the risk of harm. We judged the included studies to be generally at a low or unclear risk of bias; however, there were some ratings of high risk, due to a lack of blinding and the potential for detection bias. Using the GRADE system, we rated the overall quality of the evidence for our cessation outcomes as 'low' or 'very low', due to imprecision and indirectness. A 'low' grade means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. A 'very low' grade means we are very uncertain about the estimate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who do not wish to quit can be helped to cut down the number of cigarettes they smoke and to quit smoking in the long term, using NRT, despite original intentions not to do so. However, we rated the evidence contributing to the cessation outcome for NRT as 'low' by GRADE standards. There is a lack of evidence to support the use of other harm reduction aids to reduce the harm caused by continued tobacco smoking. This could simply be due to the lack of high-quality studies (our confidence in cessation outcomes for these aids is rated 'low' or 'very low' due to imprecision by GRADE standards), meaning that we may have missed a worthwhile effect, or due to a lack of effect on reduction or quit rates. It is therefore important that more high-quality RCTs are conducted, and that these also measure the long-term health effects of treatments.

Nicotine replacement therapy to aid gradual cessation in smokers with no intention to quit: Association between reduction quantity and later abstinence

Objective

We examined how quantity and trajectory of smoking reduction influence later abstinence in smokers without intention to quit and being prescribed free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

Method

We conducted an a posteriori analysis from a data archive of adult smokers in a randomized controlled trial of smoking reduction using counseling and free NRT (n = 928). Reduction was analyzed as the absolute and percentage decrease in self-reported daily cigarette consumption at three follow-ups (1 week, 1 and 3 months) compared with the baseline. Logistic regression model and multiple imputation were used to examine the association between early reduction and abstinence at 6 months.

Results

Reducing 10% of cigarette consumption at the three follow-ups was associated with 16% (95% CI 5–28%), 23% (95%CI 11–36%) and 27% (95% CI 13–42%) increase in abstinence, respectively. Greater reduction predicted abstinence when the percentage reduction was more than one-third (above 31.4%). Progressive increase in the percentage reduction predicted more abstinence (OR = 1.90, 95%CI 1.01–3.58).

Conclusions

Greater percentage reduction by at least one-third and progressive reduction predicted abstinence in those who reduced smoking. Such new evidence can guide the improvement of clinical service for tobacco dependency treatment and support further studies on smoking reduction and cessation.

The safety of treatments for tobacco use disorder

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco continues to be a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the world. First-line pharmacotherapies for the treatment of tobacco use disorder include nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion sustained-release (SR), and varenicline. We provide an overview of current evidence on the safety of first-line pharmacotherapies for the treatment of tobacco use disorder.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized clinical trials published in English up to July 2015 were identified and reviewed through searches of PUBMED using the terms nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion SR, varenicline, smoking, and tobacco cessation.

EXPERT OPINION

Nicotine replacement has few contraindications and side effects and can be recommended to almost all tobacco users. Bupropion SR should be used with caution in patients with bipolar disorder or liver or kidney disease, and alternative treatments should be considered for patients with a history of seizures or who are at risk for seizures. The only contraindication for varenicline is an allergy to the medication, and nausea is the most common side effect. Varenicline can be used safely in patients with cardiovascular disease. Varenicline can be used in patients with stable psychiatric disease and safety can be ensured through close clinical monitoring.

Does deterioration in mental health after smoking cessation predict relapse to smoking?

BACKGROUND

It is possible that some people who quit smoking experience improved mental health after cessation and therefore remain abstinent, whereas other people who quit may experience worse mental health after cessation and therefore be more likely to relapse to smoking. Thus, in this study we aimed to examine the association between an enduring change in mental health following the cessation period and future risk of relapse.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of prospective data pooled from five placebo-controlled randomised trials for smoking reduction conducted in Europe, USA and Australia. Change in mental health (SF-36, scored 0-100) was measured from baseline to four months for those who were biologically-validated as point-prevalence abstainers at four month follow-up. Thereafter we assessed whether relapse to smoking by 12 months was more likely in those whose mental health had worsened between baseline and four months compared with those who saw no change or an improvement.

RESULTS

After adjustment for baseline mental health and other major covariates, there was no greater tendency to relapse at 12 months for those whose mental health worsened after cessation compared with those who had no change or an improvement. The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval was 1.01 (0.97 to 1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

People whose mental health worsens after smoking cessation are at no greater risk of subsequent relapse to smoking than those whose mental health stays the same or improves.

Does smoking cessation result in improved mental health? A comparison of regression modelling and propensity score matching

OBJECTIVES

Smokers report that smoking is therapeutic; a recent meta-analysis suggests the contrary. However, the association in that review may be explained by group-membership bias and confounding. Propensity score matching (PSM) aims to produce causal estimates from observational data. We examined the association between cessation and change in mental health before and after PSM.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of prospective data from 5 placebo-controlled randomised trials for smoking reduction.

PARTICIPANTS

All participants were adult smokers and had smoked for at least 3 years. Participants were excluded if they were pregnant, breast feeding, under psychiatric care, deemed to be unfit by a general practitioner or part of a cessation programme. In total, 937 participants provided smoking data at both 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. Of these, 68 were confirmed as abstinent at both 6 and 12 months and 589 as continuous smokers at both follow-ups.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Change in mental health (36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36), scored 0-100) from baseline (while all participants were smokers) to 12-month follow-up (after cessation) was compared between quitters and continuing smokers with and without adjustment, and after PSM.

RESULTS

Before matching, quitters' mental health scores improved compared with continuing smokers', the mean difference and 95% CI was 5.5 (1.6 to 9.4). After adjustment, the difference was 4.5 (0.6 to 8.5), and after PSM, the difference was 3.4 (-2.2 to 8.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in mental health after smoking cessation may be partly but not completely explained by group membership bias and confounding.

Effect of Smoking Reduction Therapy on Smoking Cessation for Smokers without an Intention to Quit: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled

OBJECTIVE

Effective strategies are needed to encourage smoking cessation for smokers without an intention to quit. We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate whether smoking reduction therapy can increase the long-term cessation rates of smokers without an intention to quit.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of smoking reduction therapy on long-term smoking cessation in smokers without an intention to quit. The primary outcome was the cessation rate at the longest follow-up period. A random effects model was used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Fourteen trials with a total of 7981 smokers were included. The pooled analysis suggested that reduction support plus medication significantly increased the long-term cessation of smokers without an intention to quit compared to reduction support plus placebo (RR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.44-2.7; I(2), 52%) or no intervention (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.41-2.64; I(2), 46%). In a subgroup of smokers who received varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), the differences were also statistically significant. This suggests the safety of using NRT. The percentage of smokers with serious adverse events who discontinued because of these events in the non-NRT group was slightly significantly different than in the control group. Insufficient evidence is available to test the efficacy of reduction behavioural support in promoting long-term cessation among this population.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis indicated the efficacy of NRT- and varenicline-assisted reduction to achieve complete cessation among smokers without an intention to quit. Further evidence is needed to assess the efficacy and safety of reduction behavioural support and bupropion.

Does smoking reduction worsen mental health? A comparison of two observational approaches

OBJECTIVES

The association between smoking reduction and mental health is of particular interest given that many smokers report that smoking offers mental health benefits. We aimed to assess the association between smoking reduction and change in mental health using two different analytical approaches to determine if there was any evidence of an association. There were no prior hypotheses.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of prospective individual level patient data from 5 merged placebo-controlled randomised trials of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking reduction.

PARTICIPANTS

All participants were adult smokers, selected because they wanted to reduce but not stop smoking, and had smoked for at least 3 years. Participants were excluded if they were pregnant, breastfeeding, under psychiatric care, deemed to be unfit by a general practitioner, or part of a cessation programme. 2066 participants were enrolled in the trials, 177 participants were biologically validated as prolonged reducers, and 509 as continuing smokers at both 6-week and 18-week follow-ups.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Change in mental health from baseline to an 18-week follow-up was measured using the emotional well-being subscale on the Short Form Health Survey-36.

RESULTS

After adjustment for confounding variables, the differences for reducers compared with continuing smokers were: regression modelling -0.6 (95% CI -4.4 to 3.2) and propensity score matching 1.1 (95% CI -2.0 to 4.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking reduction, sustained for at least 12 weeks, was not associated with change in mental health, suggesting that reducing smoking was no better or worse for mental health than continuing smoking. Clinicians offering smoking reduction as a route to quit can be confident that, on average, smoking reduction is not associated with negative change in mental health.

Effectiveness of smoking reduction intervention for hardcore smokers

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and correlates of hardcore smokers, who have high daily cigarette consumption, no quitting history and no intention to quit, have been studied in several western developed countries, but no previous trials of smoking cessation have tested intervention effectiveness for these smokers. The current study examined if hardcore smokers can benefit from smoking reduction intervention to achieve cessation, and explored the underlying reasons.

METHODS

A posteriori analysis was conducted on data from a randomized controlled trial of smoking reduction intervention on 1,154 smokers who did not want to quit. Odds ratios of 7-day point prevalence of abstinence, smoking reduction by at least 50% and quit attempt at the 6-month follow-up comparing subgroups of smokers were analyzed.

RESULTS

In hardcore smokers, the odds ratio comparing the quit rate between the intervention and control group was 4.18 (95% CI: 0.51-34.65), which was greater than non-hardcore smokers (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 0.98-2.54). The number needed to treat for hardcore and non-hardcore smokers was 8.33 (95% CI: 5.56-16.67) and 16.67 (95% CI: 8.33-233.64), respectively. In smokers who did not have quit attempt experience and those who smoked more than 15 cigarettes daily, the odds ratio comparing intervention and control group was 3.29 (95% CI: 0.72-14.98) and 1.36 (95% CI: 0.78-2.36), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The a posteriori analysis provided pilot results that smoking reduction intervention may be effective to help hardcore smokers to quit and reduce smoking. Having no previous quit attempt was identified as more important than having large cigarette consumption in explaining the greater effectiveness of the intervention.

E-cigarettes and smoking cessation: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

E-cigarettes are currently being debated regarding their possible role in smoking cessation and as they are becoming increasingly popular, the research to date requires investigation.

Objectives

To investigate whether the use of e-cigarettes is associated with smoking cessation or reduction, and whether there is any difference in efficacy of e-cigarettes with and without nicotine on smoking cessation.

Data Sources

A systematic review of articles with no limit on publication date was conducted by searching PubMed, Web of Knowledge and Scopus databases.

Methods

Published studies, those reported smoking abstinence or reduction in cigarette consumption after the use of e-cigarettes, were included. Studies were systematically reviewed, and meta-analyses were conducted using Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect and random-effects models. Degree of heterogeneity among studies and quality of the selected studies were evaluated.

Results

Six studies were included involving 7,551 participants. Meta-analyses included 1,242 participants who had complete data on smoking cessation. Nicotine filled e-cigarettes were more effective for cessation than those without nicotine (pooled Risk Ratio 2.29, 95%CI 1.05-4.97). Amongst 1,242 smokers, 224 (18%) reported smoking cessation after using nicotine-enriched e-cigarettes for a minimum period of six months. Use of such e-cigarettes was positively associated with smoking cessation with a pooled Effect Size of 0.20 (95%CI 0.11-0.28). Use of e-cigarettes was also associated with a reduction in the number of cigarettes used.

Limitations

Included studies were heterogeneous, due to different study designs and gender variation. Whilst we were able to comment on the efficacy of nicotine vs. non-nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, we were unable to comment on the efficacy of e-cigarettes vs. other interventions for cessation, given the lack of comparator groups in the studies included in this meta-analysis.

Conclusions

Use of e-cigarettes is associated with smoking cessation and reduction. More randomised controlled trials are needed to assess effectiveness against other cessation methods.

Effectiveness and tolerability of electronic cigarette in real-life: a 24-month prospective observational study

Electronic cigarettes (e-Cigarette) are battery-operated devices designed to vaporise nicotine that may aid smokers to quit or reduce their cigarette consumption. Research on e-Cigarettes is urgently needed to ensure that the decisions of regulators, healthcare providers and consumers are evidence based. Here we assessed long-term effectiveness and tolerability of e-Cigarette used in a 'naturalistic' setting. This prospective observational study evaluated smoking reduction/abstinence in smokers not intending to quit using an e-Cigarette ('Categoria'; Arbi Group, Italy). After an intervention phase of 6 months, during which e-Cigarette use was provided on a regular basis, cigarettes per day (cig/day) and exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) levels were followed up in an observation phase at 18 and 24 months. Efficacy measures included: (a) ≥50% reduction in the number of cig/day from baseline, defined as self-reported reduction in the number of cig/day (≥50%) compared to baseline; (b) ≥80% reduction in the number of cig/day from baseline, defined as self-reported reduction in the number of cig/day (≥80%) compared to baseline; (c) abstinence from smoking, defined as complete self-reported abstinence from tobacco smoking (together with an eCO concentration of ≤10 ppm). Smoking reduction and abstinence rates were computed, and adverse events reviewed. Of the 40 subjects, 17 were lost to follow-up at 24 months. A >50% reduction in the number of cig/day at 24 months was shown in 11/40 (27.5%) participants with a median of 24 cig/day use at baseline decreasing significantly to 4 cig/day (p = 0.003). Smoking abstinence was reported in 5/40 (12.5%) participants while combined >50% reduction and smoking abstinence was observed in 16/40 (40%) participants at 24 months. Five subjects stopped e-Cigarette use (and stayed quit), three relapsed back to tobacco smoking and four upgraded to more performing products by 24 months. Only some mouth irritation, throat irritation, and dry cough were reported. Withdrawal symptoms were uncommon. Long-term e-Cigarette use can substantially decrease cigarette consumption in smokers not willing to quit and is well tolerated. ( http://ClinicalTrials.govnumberNCT01195597 ).

Gradual versus abrupt quitting among French treatment-seeking smokers

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the prevalence and predictors of gradual quitting among treatment-seeking smokers.

METHOD

This study examined quit attempts among 28,156 adult smokers who attended French smoking cessation services nationwide between 2007 and 2010. Predictors of gradual quitting were determined using multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

Only 4.4% quit gradually whereas 48.7% quit abruptly and 46.9% continued smoking. 34.1% of abrupt quitters and 31.9% of gradual quitters were abstinent at 1month post-quit (p=0.108). Gradual quitting was associated with: older age, heavy smoking at baseline, no previous quit attempts, low self-efficacy, baseline intake of anxiolytics, symptoms of depression and history of depressive episodes. Gradual quitters had a similar anxio-depressive profile than continued smokers but were more educated and more likely to have reported previous quit attempts. Prescription of oral nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) only as opposed to combination NRT doubled the odds of gradual quitting. Likelihood of gradual quitting compared with continued smoking improved with the number of follow-up visits.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that hard-to-treat smokers may be more likely to quit gradually than abruptly. However, intense follow-up with adapted treatment appears to be crucial to achieve cessation gradually in French smoking cessation services.

Symptoms of nicotine toxicity in subjects achieving high cotinine levels during nicotine replacement therapy

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aids smoking reduction and cessation. Although NRT is effective and safe, some smokers may achieve high nicotine levels. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and severity of nicotine-related adverse events in subjects with levels of cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, that increased by >50% compared with baseline smoking in controlled clinical trials of NRT.

METHODS

Data from participants in randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of various formulations of NRT (Nicorette®), including patch, gum, oral inhaler, sublingual tablet, nasal spray, mouth spray, and combinations, were extracted from a clinical database. Eligible studies were performed between 1989 and 2010. In addition to baseline, at least 1 subsequent plasma or salivary cotinine concentration was measured, and adverse events were recorded simultaneously. Of 28 eligible studies, 24 were smoking cessation studies and 4 were smoking reduction studies.

RESULTS

Cotinine levels that increased by >50% above baseline were recorded during treatment in 746 of 7,120 subjects (10.5%). Nausea was reported in 16 subjects (0.2% of the total, upper 99% confidence limit [CL] 0.4%), vomiting in 2 subjects (0.0%, upper 99% CL 0.1%), palpitations in 5 subjects (0.1%, upper 99% CL 0.2%), dizziness in 11 subjects (0.2%; upper 99% CL 0.3%), and headache in 35 subjects (0.5%, upper 99% CL 0.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Typical symptoms indicating nicotine overdose together with high cotinine levels were rare during treatment with NRT. These findings support the safety of NRT for smoking cessation or reduction.

Electronic cigarettes. Potential harms and benefits

Use of electronic cigarettes, devices that deliver a nicotine-containing vapor, has increased rapidly across the country and globally. Perceived and marketed as a "healthier alternative" to conventional cigarettes, few data exist regarding the safety of these devices and their efficacy in harm reduction and treatment of tobacco dependence; even less is known about their overall impact on population health. This review highlights the recent data regarding electronic cigarette toxicity, impact on lung function, and efficacy in smoking reduction and cessation. Studies show that the vapor generated from electronic cigarettes has variable amounts of nicotine and potential harmful toxins, albeit at levels lower than in conventional cigarettes. The long-term carcinogenic and lung function effects of electronic cigarettes are not known. Although some data demonstrate that electronic cigarettes may be effective in reducing conventional cigarette consumption, there are no data demonstrating the efficacy of electronic cigarettes as a tool to achieve cessation. Until robust longitudinal evaluations demonstrate the safety of electronic cigarettes and efficacy in treatment of tobacco dependence, their role as a harm reduction tool is unclear.

Clinical strategies to enhance the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a review of the literature

A number of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies have led to increases in quitting and thus to significant benefits to public health. Among existing medications, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been available the longest, has the largest literature base in support, and is the only option for over-the-counter access. While the short-term efficacy of NRT is well documented in clinical trials, long-term abstinence rates associated with using NRT are modest, as most smokers will relapse. This literature review examines emerging clinical strategies to improve NRT efficacy. After an initial overview of NRT and its FDA-approved indications for use, we review randomized trials in which clinical delivery of NRT was manipulated and tested, in an attempt to enhance efficacy, through (1) duration of use (pre-quit and extended use), (2) amount of use (high-dose and combination NRT), (3) tailoring to specific smoker groups (genotype and phenotype), or (4) use of NRT for novel purposes (relapse prevention, temporary abstinence, cessation induction). Outcomes vary within and across topic area, and we highlight areas that offer stronger promise. Combination NRT likely represents the most promising strategy moving forward; other clinical strategies offer conflicting evidence but deserve further testing (pre-quit NRT or tailored treatment) or offer potential utility but are in need of further, direct tests. Some areas, though based on a limited set of studies, do not offer great promise (high-dose and extended treatment NRT). We conclude with a brief discussion of emergent NRT products (e.g., oral nicotine spray, among others), which may ultimately offer greater efficacy than current formulations. In order to further lower the prevalence of smoking, novel strategies designed to optimize NRT efficacy are needed.

Electronic cigarettes. Potential harms and benefits

Use of electronic cigarettes, devices that deliver a nicotine-containing vapor, has increased rapidly across the country and globally. Perceived and marketed as a "healthier alternative" to conventional cigarettes, few data exist regarding the safety of these devices and their efficacy in harm reduction and treatment of tobacco dependence; even less is known about their overall impact on population health. This review highlights the recent data regarding electronic cigarette toxicity, impact on lung function, and efficacy in smoking reduction and cessation. Studies show that the vapor generated from electronic cigarettes has variable amounts of nicotine and potential harmful toxins, albeit at levels lower than in conventional cigarettes. The long-term carcinogenic and lung function effects of electronic cigarettes are not known. Although some data demonstrate that electronic cigarettes may be effective in reducing conventional cigarette consumption, there are no data demonstrating the efficacy of electronic cigarettes as a tool to achieve cessation. Until robust longitudinal evaluations demonstrate the safety of electronic cigarettes and efficacy in treatment of tobacco dependence, their role as a harm reduction tool is unclear.

Looks like smoking, is it smoking?: children's perceptions of cigarette-like nicotine delivery systems, smoking and cessation

Background

Alternative cigarette-like nicotine delivery systems have been met with diverse opinions. One concern has been for the effect on children. We investigate whether children can differentiate tobacco cigarette smoking from use of a nicotine inhaler and electronic cigarette. Their opinions on these devices was also of interest.

Methods

Two structured focus groups and twelve individual interviews were conducted with twenty Māori and Pacific children (6–10 years old) in low socioeconomic areas in Auckland, New Zealand. Children viewed short video clips on an iPad that demonstrated an actor smoking a tobacco cigarette, sucking a lollipop or using an electronic cigarette or a nicotine inhaler.

Results

Children did not recognise the inhaler or electronic cigarette. Some children did however notice anomalies in the ‘smoking’ behaviour. Once told about the products the children were mostly positive about the potential of the inhaler and electronic cigarette to assist smokers to quit. Negative perceptions were expressed, including views about the ill health effects associated with continued nicotine intake and the smoker’s inability to quit.

Conclusions

In a context unfamiliar with electronic cigarettes or nicotine inhalers, such as New Zealand, children may misperceive use of these products as smoking. Once these products are more common and the purpose of them is known, seeing people use them should normalise quitting behaviour, something the children were very supportive of.

Electronic cigarettes and vaping: a new challenge in clinical medicine and public health. A literature review

Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use, or vaping, in the United States and worldwide is increasing. Their use is highly controversial from scientific, political, financial, psychological, and sociological ideologies. Given the controversial nature of e-cigarettes and vaping, how should medical care providers advise their patients? To effectively face this new challenge, health care professionals need to become more familiar with the existing literature concerning e-cigarettes and vaping, especially the scientific literature. Thus, the aim of this article is to present a review of the scientific evidence-based primary literature concerning electronic cigarettes and vaping. A search of the most current literature using the pubmed database dating back to 2008, and using electronic cigarette(s) or e-cigarette(s) as key words, yielded a total of 66 highly relevant articles. These articles primarily deal with (1) consumer-based surveys regarding personal views on vaping, (2) chemical analysis of e-cigarette cartridges, solutions, and mist, (3) nicotine content, delivery, and pharmacokinetics, and (4) clinical and physiological studies investigating the effects of acute vaping. When compared to the effects of smoking, the scant available literature suggests that vaping could be a “harm reduction” alternative to smoking and a possible means for smoking cessation, at least to the same degree as other Food and Drug Administration-approved nicotine replacement therapies. However, it is unclear if vaping e-cigarettes will reduce or increase nicotine addiction. It is obvious that more rigorous investigations of the acute and long-term health effects of vaping are required to establish the safety and efficacy of these devices; especially parallel experiments comparing the cardiopulmonary effects of vaping to smoking. Only then will the medical community be able to adequately meet the new challenge e-cigarettes and vaping present to clinical medicine and public health.

Smoking cessation in community pharmacy practice-a clinical information needs analysis

Background

With the emerging role of pharmacists in implementing smoking cessation services and the recent evidence about smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, a needs analysis to assess baseline knowledge about current smoking cessation practice is needed; hence, training and development in this area can target possible ‘gaps’.

Objective

This study aimed at exploring pharmacy students’ knowledge about and attitudes toward smoking cessation, as compared to practicing community pharmacists and smoking cessation educators. The overall objective was to uncover underlying ‘gaps’ in pharmacy-based smoking cessation practice, particularly clinical gaps.

Setting

Final-year pharmacy students at the University of Sydney, practicing community pharmacists and smoking cessation educators in Australia.

Method

As no previous standard pharmacist-focused smoking cessation knowledge questionnaires exist, a review of the literature informed the development of such a questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to a cohort of fourth-year pharmacy students at the University of Sydney, practicing pharmacists and smoking cessation educators. Data analysis was performed using Predictive Analytics SoftWare (PASW® Statistics 18). Mean total scores, independent t-tests, analysis of variances and exploratory factor analysis were performed.

Main outcome measure

To determine areas of major clinical deficits about current evidence related to smoking cessation interventions at the pharmacy level.

Results

Responses from 250 students, 51 pharmacists and 20 educators were obtained. Smoking educators scored significantly higher than pharmacists and students (P < .05), while score differences in the latter two groups were not statistically significant (P > .05). All groups scored high on ‘general’ knowledge questions as compared to specialised pharmacologic and pharmacotherapeutic questions. All respondents demonstrated positive attitudes toward the implications of smoking cessation. Factor analysis of the 24-item knowledge section extracted 12 items loading on 5 factors accounting for 53% of the total variance.

Conclusions

The results provide a valid indication of ‘gaps’ in the practice of up-to-date smoking cessation services among Australian pharmacy professionals, particularly in clinical expertise areas involving assessment of nicotine dependence and indications, dosages, adverse effects, contraindications, drug interactions and combinations of available pharmacotherapies. These gaps should be addressed, and the results should inform the design, implementation and evaluation of a pharmacy-based educational training program targeting current clinical issues in smoking cessation.

Does smoking reduction make smokers happier? Evidence from a cross-sectional survey

Objectives: Stopping smoking leads to greater happiness and life satisfaction. This raises the question as to whether harm reduction, i.e. smoking reduction (SR) and the use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) for SR, might lead to a similar benefit. This is of importance, given that the National Institute of Clinical Excellence in the UK is due to release guidance on harm reduction in 2013.

Design: Data were collected from 1,532 smokers involved in the Smoking Toolkit Study.

Method: Participants were asked if they were cutting down and if they were using Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT). Smokers also rated happiness and life satisfaction.

Results: There was no evidence of an association between SR or use of NRT for SR and either reported ‘happiness’ or ‘life satisfaction’. Nor was there an association between measures of ‘happiness’ or ‘life satisfaction’ and cigarette consumption.

Conclusion: It appears that SR is not associated with mental health benefits. This suggests that complete cessation may be necessary for benefits to be incurred. Prospective studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Comparative effectiveness of the nicotine lozenge and tobacco-free snuff for smokeless tobacco reduction

Long-term smokeless tobacco (ST) use is associated with cardiovascular disease and cancer, but not all ST users want to quit. Previous studies have evaluated the effectiveness of nicotine lozenges and tobacco-free snuff for reducing ST use among ST users not ready to quit, but no comparative effectiveness trials of these two products have been conducted. We conducted a multicenter, randomized clinical pilot study evaluating the comparative effectiveness of the 4-mg nicotine lozenge and tobacco-free snuff for reducing ST use and increasing tobacco abstinence among ST users with no intention of quitting in the next 30 days. Participants received 8 weeks of treatment and behavioral counseling on tobacco reduction strategies with follow-up to 26 weeks. We randomized 81 participants (40 nicotine lozenges, 41 tobacco-free snuff). No significant differences in reduction were observed between the two groups at weeks 8, 12, and 26. No significant differences were observed between groups in nicotine withdrawal or tobacco craving. However, both groups significantly reduced (p<.001) ST use in cans/week and dips/day from baseline which was sustained through the end-of-study. The observed biochemically-confirmed abstinence rates at week 26 were similar between groups (12% vs. 12%, one-tailed p=.615). The 4-mg nicotine lozenge and the tobacco-free snuff both appear to be effective and comparable for reducing ST use among ST users not ready to quit in the next 30 days.

Impact of an electronic cigarette on smoking reduction and cessation in schizophrenic smokers: a prospective 12-month pilot study

Background: Cigarette smoking is a tough addiction to break. This dependence is the most common dual diagnosis for individuals with schizophrenia. Currently three effective drugs are approved for smoking cessation: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion. However, some serious side effects of varenicline have been reported, including depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide. The use of bupropion also has side effects. It should not be used by people who have epilepsy or any condition that lowers the seizure threshold, nor by people who take a specific class of drugs called monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Hence, there are pharmacodynamic reason to believe they could precipitate or exacerbate psychosis. For its capacity to deliver nicotine and provide a coping mechanism for conditioned smoking cues by replacing some of the rituals associated with smoking gestures, electronic-cigarettes may reduce nicotine withdrawal symptoms without serious side effects. Our recent work with ECs in healthy smokers not intending to quit consistently show surprisingly high success rates. We hypothesised that these positive findings could be replicated in difficult patients with schizophrenia This tool may help smokers with schizophrenia remain abstinent during their quitting attempts or to reduce cigarette consumption. Efficacy and safety of these devices in long-term smoking cessation and/or smoking reduction studies have never been investigated for this special population. Methods: In this study we monitored possible modifications in smoking habits of 14 smokers (not intending to quit) with schizophrenia experimenting with the “Categoria” e-Cigarette with a focus on smoking reduction and smoking abstinence. Study participants were invited to attend six study visits: at baseline, week-4, week-8, week-12 week-24 and week 52. Product use, number of cigarettes smoked, carbon monoxide in exhaled breath (eCO) and positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia levels were measured at each visit. Smoking reduction and abstinence rates were calculated. Adverse events were also reviewed. Results: Sustained 50% reduction in the number of cig/day at week-52 was shown in 7/14 (50%) participants; their median of 30 cig/day decreasing significantly to 15 cig/day (p = 0.018). Sustained smoking abstinence at week-52 was observed in 2/14 (14.3%) participants. Combined sustained 50% reduction and smoking abstinence was shown in 9/14 (64.3%) participants. Nausea was observed in 2/14 (14.4%) of participants, throat irritation in 2/14 (14.4%) of participants, headache in 2/14 (14.4%) of participants , and dry cough in 4/14 (28.6%) of participants. However, these adverse events diminished substantially by week-24. Overall, one to two cartridges/day were used throughout the study. Positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia are not increased after smoking reduction/cessation in patients using e-cigarettes. Conclusions: We have shown for the first time that the use of e-cigarette substantially decreased cigarette consumption without causing significant side effects in chronic schizophrenic patients who smoke not intending to quit. This was achieved without negative impacts on the symptoms of schizophrenia as assessed by SAPS and SANS symptoms scales.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50 to 70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.

Smoking intensity and lipoprotein abnormalities in active smokers

BACKGROUND

Smoking is associated with decreased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and elevated triglycerides.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of five markers of smoking intensity on lipoprotein concentrations and particle sizes in a large, modern cohort of current smokers.

METHODS

Fasting nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy lipoprotein profiles were obtained in a large cohort of current smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. Multivariate linear regression models were constructed to determine predictors of lipoprotein fractions. Models included age, sex, race, waist circumference, level of physical activity and alcohol consumption. Smoking intensity parameters included: current cigarettes smoked/day, pack-years, the Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence (FTND) score, and carbon monoxide (CO) levels.

RESULTS

The 1,504 subjects (58% women, 84% white) had a mean (standard deviation) age of 45 (11.0) years. They smoked 21.4 (8.9) cigarettes/day (29.4 [20.4] pack-years). HDL-C (42.0 [13.5] mg/dL) and total HDL particles (30.3 [5.9] μmol/L) were low. Cigarettes smoked/day independently predicted higher total cholesterol (p=0.009), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p=0.023), and triglycerides (p=0.002). CO levels predicted lower HDL-C (p=0.027) and total HDL particles (p=0.009). However, the incremental R(2) for each marker of smoking intensity on each lipoprotein was small. Relationships between the FTND score and lipoproteins were weak and inconsistent. Participants in the lowest quintiles of current smoking, pack-years, and CO had more favorable lipoproteins (all p<0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Among current smokers, increased smoking burden is associated with small increases in total cholesterol, LDL-C, and triglycerides. Increased recent smoke exposure is associated with small decreases in HDL-C and HDL particles.

Use of smoking reduction strategies among U.S. tobacco quitlines

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco quitlines (QLs) are efficacious and have assisted many smokers in achieving tobacco abstinence. However, most smokers are not able to achieve tobacco abstinence with QL services. QL counseling interventions for smokers who do not quit on their target quit date (TQD) and decline to set a new TQD after missing their TQD have not been systematically evaluated.

METHODS

A telephone survey of tobacco QLs in the United States (US) was conducted to examine systematic approaches used with smokers who do not quit on their TQD and decline to set a new TQD. Tobacco QLs service providers were identified through the North American Quitline Consortium (NAQC).

RESULTS

Fourteen service providers managing QLs of all 50 US states were identified and completed the voluntary survey. All providers recommended setting a new quit TQD if smokers did not achieve smoking cessation by their initial TQD. Six percent of US state QLs used brief motivational interviewing utilizing the "5R's" (relevance, risk, rewards, roadblocks, repetition). However, 90% of QLs had intervention protocols emphasizing smoking rate reduction.

CONCLUSION

Although some US QLs utilized the "5Rs," the majority provided smoking reduction interventions for smokers not achieving tobacco cessation by their initial TQD and declining to set a new TQD. Research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of smoking rate reduction methods implemented through QLs for increasing smoking abstinence rates.

Does the use of ingredients added to tobacco increase cigarette addictiveness?: a detailed analysis

The possibility that ingredients added to tobacco contribute to the addictiveness of cigarette smoking was evaluated by comparing cessation rates of smokers of traditional blended cigarettes to those of smokers of flue-cured cigarettes. Such a comparison is a valid means of assessing cigarette ingredients as traditional blended cigarettes contain ingredients (>20), whereas flue-cured cigarettes contain no or very few ingredients. Separate analysis of 108 treatment groups and 108 control groups from randomized clinical trials of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) were performed by multiple logistic regressions. The results of these analyses demonstrated slightly higher quit rates for smokers of blended cigarettes (OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.70-2.13 and OR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.14-1.53 for treatment and control groups, respectively). The control groups were also investigated using classification tree analysis from which no difference in quit rates were observed for smokers of either type of cigarette. Further analyses showed that studies that utilized a high level of psychological support in conjunction with NRT produced at least a two-fold increase in quit rates compared to studies that utilized a low level of psychological support. It was also demonstrated that there is a large difference when results were reported by sustained abstinence compared to point prevalence. Additional meta-analyses found the pooled OR for NRT treatment to be in exact agreement with a recent review that assessed the effectiveness of NRT. Overall these results strongly suggest that ingredients used in the manufacture of traditional blended cigarettes do not increase the inherent addictiveness of cigarettes.

A systematic review of nicotine by inhalation: is there a role for the inhaled route?

INTRODUCTION

A considerable minority of adults remain addicted to smoking cigarettes despite substantial education and public health efforts. Nicotine replacement therapies have only modest long-term quit rates. The pulmonary route of nicotine delivery has advantages over other routes. However, there are regulatory and technical barriers to the development of pulmonary nicotine delivery devices, and hence, none are commercially available. Current knowledge about pulmonary nicotine delivery is scattered throughout the literature and other sources such as patent applications. This review draws together what is currently known about pulmonary nicotine delivery and identifies potential ways that deep lung delivery can be achieved with a simple portable device.

AIMS

To systematically review clinical trials of nicotine inhalers, determine whether they delivered nicotine via the lung, and identify ways that pulmonary delivery of medicinal nicotine might be achieved and the technical issues involved.

METHODS

Systematic search of Medline and Embase.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials met the inclusion criteria. Cough, reflex interruption of smooth inspiration, and throat scratch limited the usefulness of nicotine inhalers. The pharmacokinetic profiles of portable nicotine inhalers were inferior to smoking, but among commercially available products, electronic cigarettes are currently the most promising.

CONCLUSIONS

Pulmonary nicotine delivery might be maximized by use of nicotine salts, which have a more physiological pH than pure nicotine, by ensuring the mass of the particles is optimal for alveolar absorption, and by adding flavoring agents. Metered-dose inhalers potentially can deliver nicotine more efficiently than other nicotine products, facilitating smoking cessation and improving smokers' lives.

Comparing an immediate cessation versus reduction approach to smokeless tobacco cessation

INTRODUCTION

Relatively few studies have investigated pharmacological or behavioral treatment of smokeless tobacco (ST) users who do not have immediate quit plans. In this study, we compared a reduction treatment approach with an immediate cessation approach in a population of ST users who reported no immediate plans to quit.

METHODS

Subjects randomly assigned to the immediate cessation condition set a quit date soon after enrollment and were offered 2 weeks of nicotine patch therapy to help in their cessation efforts. Subjects assigned to the ST reduction group were provided with their choice of either 4 mg nicotine lozenge or ST brand switching to help them reduce their ST use or levels of nicotine exposure, respectively. Quit date was 6 weeks after the onset of treatment. Follow-up was at 12 weeks and 26 weeks postenrollment and 26 weeks postquit.

RESULTS

Both 7-day point prevalence abstinence and prolonged abstinence rates following the quit date were significantly higher in the immediate cessation group versus the reduction group at 12 and 26 weeks (all p values ≤ .04) and for prolonged abstinence at 6 months postquit (p = .002). Significant reductions in ST use among nonquitters were observed for both groups (p < .0001) with no differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that immediate cessation with an established quit date resulted in greater cessation success than a gradual reduction approach among ST users who do not have an immediate quit plan but are motivated to quit.

Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of smokeless tobacco use

Smokeless tobacco (SLT) is used in a variety of forms throughout the world. Long-term SLT use is associated with adverse health consequences. Effective pharmacotherapies are needed to treat SLT users who want to achieve tobacco abstinence. In the current review, we discuss the pharmacological interventions identified in a recent meta-analysis of interventions for SLT users, with inclusion of additional articles identified by searching PubMed up to August 2011. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been demonstrated to increase short-term tobacco abstinence rates and to alleviate craving and withdrawal symptoms among SLT users trying to quit. Bupropion sustained release has been shown to decrease craving and attenuate post-cessation weight gain among SLT users trying to quit. Varenicline is the only available medication demonstrated to increase long-term (≥6 months) tobacco abstinence rates among SLT users. Overall, findings from studies investigating pharmacotherapies for SLT users have been relatively disappointing. SLT reduction interventions may hold some promise for increasing abstinence rates among SLT users not interested in quitting. Additional investigations of higher dose NRT and combination pharmacotherapy are needed to advance the treatment of SLT users.

The acceptability of nicotine containing products as alternatives to cigarettes: findings from two pilot studies

Background

This study aimed to explore issues that might impact on the acceptability and feasibility of offering smokers nicotine containing products either to quit nicotine use altogether by using as a short term means of quitting cigarettes or as a longer term substitute.

Method

Two small pilot studies, one in the UK (n = 34) involving face to face contact and direct provision of the product, the other in Australia (n = 31) conducted remotely with products sent in the mail.

Results

Nicotine lozenges were the most popular products, but significant minorities liked a smokeless product more. Use stimulated interest in quitting, and although many failed to use all the products provided, most were interested in future use, more often to help quit than as a planned long-term substitute.

Conclusions

These studies indicate an untapped interest in the use of substitutes to reduce the harmfulness of smoking. Studies of this sort do not inhibit interest in quitting nicotine altogether, and may facilitate it. The greater the range of products on offer, the more smokers are likely to try a product to quit.

Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e-Cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study

Background

Cigarette smoking is a tough addiction to break. Therefore, improved approaches to smoking cessation are necessary. The electronic-cigarette (e-Cigarette), a battery-powered electronic nicotine delivery device (ENDD) resembling a cigarette, may help smokers to remain abstinent during their quit attempt or to reduce cigarette consumption. Efficacy and safety of these devices in long-term smoking cessation and/or smoking reduction studies have never been investigated.

Methods

In this prospective proof-of-concept study we monitored possible modifications in smoking habits of 40 regular smokers (unwilling to quit) experimenting the 'Categoria' e-Cigarette with a focus on smoking reduction and smoking abstinence. Study participants were invited to attend a total of five study visits: at baseline, week-4, week-8, week-12 and week-24. Product use, number of cigarettes smoked, and exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) levels were measured at each visit. Smoking reduction and abstinence rates were calculated. Adverse events and product preferences were also reviewed.

Results

Sustained 50% reduction in the number of cig/day at week-24 was shown in 13/40(32.5%) participants; their median of 25 cigs/day decreasing to 6 cigs/day (p < 0.001). Sustained 80% reduction was shown in 5/40(12.5%) participants; their median of 30 cigs/day decreasing to 3 cigs/day (p = 0.043). Sustained smoking abstinence at week-24 was observed in 9/40(22.5%) participants, with 6/9 still using the e-Cigarette by the end of the study. Combined sustained 50% reduction and smoking abstinence was shown in 22/40 (55%) participants, with an overall 88% fall in cigs/day. Mouth (20.6%) and throat (32.4%) irritation, and dry cough (32.4%) were common, but diminished substantially by week-24. Overall, 2 to 3 cartridges/day were used throughout the study. Participants' perception and acceptance of the product was good.

Conclusion

The use of e-Cigarette substantially decreased cigarette consumption without causing significant side effects in smokers not intending to quit (http://ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01195597).

Do smoking reduction interventions promote cessation in smokers not ready to quit?

BACKGROUND

Limited treatment options exist for smokers who are not ready to make a quit attempt. Smoking reduction may be a viable treatment approach if proven to increase the rates of long-term abstinence from smoking.

METHOD

A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials that tested smoking-reduction interventions (pharmacological, behavioral, or both combined) among smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt (immediately or in the next month) was conducted to assess the efficacy of these strategies in promoting future smoking abstinence. The primary outcome was the 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence at longest follow-up (≥6months). Ten trials were included; six tested pharmacologic interventions, one evaluated a behavioral intervention, and three evaluated combined interventions.

RESULTS

Pharmacologic (2732 participants; OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.79) and combined (638 participants; OR 2.14, 95% CI: 1.28 to 3.60) smoking-reduction interventions significantly increased long-term abstinence from smoking. Insufficient evidence was available on the efficacy of behavioral smoking-reduction interventions (320 participants; OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Further research to evaluate the efficacy of smoking reduction should have cessation as an endpoint, focus on clarity and consistency in patient selection, and identify the mechanism through which nicotine replacement therapy assisted smoking reduction in increasing abstinence rates.

Cautions and warnings on the US OTC label for nicotine replacement: what's a doctor to do?

BACKGROUND

FDA-approved labeling for over-the-counter (OTC) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) limits duration of use to a relatively short period of time (10-12 weeks) and explicitly advises against NRT use while smoking or with additional forms of NRT.

OBJECTIVE

To consider and summarize evidence accumulated since the OTC label was created regarding the safety and efficacy of longer-term and concomitant use to provide recommendations regarding these uses.

METHOD

Literature searches were conducted on Medline, journal websites, and Internet search engines, with findings reviewed by six smoking cessation researchers.

RESULTS

Persistent (i.e., long-term) use of NRT does not appear harmful and self-selected persistent use is primarily driven by concerns about relapse to smoking, not addiction. Similarly, continued use of NRT and tobacco during a lapse or relapse and combination NRT treatment do not appear harmful and appear to enhance efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Persistent users of NRT should be counseled to reduce and stop NRT only when they are not concerned about relapsing to smoking. Use of NRT with return to smoking during a lapse or relapse should not be automatically discontinued. Combination NRT therapy should be considered for all smokers, especially those who are unable to quit smoking using a single form of NRT.

The smoker's health project: a self-determination theory intervention to facilitate maintenance of tobacco abstinence

A previous randomized clinical trial based on self-determination theory (SDT) and consistent with the Public Health Service (PHS) Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence demonstrated that an intensive intervention could change autonomous self-regulation and perceived competence, which in part facilitated long-term tobacco abstinence. The current article describes a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial of three SDT-based intensive tobacco-dependence interventions. Eligible participants are randomized to one of the three treatment conditions designed to facilitate long-term maintenance of tobacco abstinence, namely, Community Care (CC), which includes the 6 month SDT-based intervention previously shown to promote autonomous self-regulation, perceived competence, medication use, and tobacco abstinence; Extended Need Support (ENS), which extends the 6 month SDT-based intervention to 12 months and trains an important other to provide support for smokers' basic psychological needs; and Harm Reduction (HR), which provides extended need support and recommends medication use for participants who do not want to stop smoking completely within 30 days but who are willing to reduce their cigarette use by half. The primary outcome is 12 month prolonged abstinence from tobacco, which is assessed one year following termination of treatment (two years post-randomization). Secondary outcomes include 7- and 30 day point prevalence tobacco abstinence, number of days using smoking-cessation medication, change in autonomous self-regulation and perceived competence, and perceived need support from important others.

Adverse events associated with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation. A systematic review and meta-analysis of one hundred and twenty studies involving 177,390 individuals

Background

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is the most common form of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy and has proven efficacy for the treatment of tobacco dependence. Although expectations of mild adverse effects have been observed to be independent predictors of reduced motivation to use NRT, adverse effects associated with NRT have not been precisely quantified.

Objective

A systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of NRT versus inert controls and all observational studies to determine the magnitude of reported adverse effects with NRT.

Methods

Searches of 10 electronic databases from inception to November 2009 were conducted. Study selection and data extraction were carried out independently in duplicate. RCTs were pooled using a random effects method with Odds Ratio [OR] as the effect measure, while proportions were pooled from observational studies. A meta-regression analysis was applied to examine whether the nicotine patch is associated with different adverse effects from those common to orally administered NRT.

Results

Ninety-two RCTs involving 32,185 participants and 28 observational studies involving 145, 205 participants were identified. Pooled RCT evidence of varying NRT formulations found an increased risk of heart palpitations and chest pains (OR 2.06, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.51-2.82, P < 0.001); nausea and vomiting (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.37-2.04, P < 0.001); gastrointestinal complaints (OR 1.54, 95% CI, 1.25-1.89, P < 0.001); and insomnia (OR 1.42, 95% CI, 1.21-1.66, P < 0.001). Pooled evidence specific to the NRT patch found an increase in skin irritations (OR 2.80, 95% CO, 2.28-3.24, P < 0.001). Orally administered NRT was associated with mouth and throat soreness (OR 1.87, 95% CI, 1.36-2.57, P < 0.001); mouth ulcers (OR 1.49, 95% CI, 1.05-2.20, P < 0.001); hiccoughs (OR 7.68, 95% CI, 4.59-12.85, P < 0.001) and coughing (OR 2.89, 95% CI, 1.92-4.33, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant increase in anxiety or depressive symptoms associated with NRT use. Non-comparative observational studies demonstrated the prevalence of these events in a broad population.

Conclusion

The use of NRT is associated with a variety of side effects. In addition to counseling and medical monitoring, clinicians should inform patients of potential side effects which are associated with the use of NRT for the treatment of tobacco dependence.

Smoking cessation or reduction with nicotine replacement therapy: a placebo-controlled double blind trial with nicotine gum and inhaler

Background

Even with effective smoking cessation medications, many smokers are unable to abruptly stop using tobacco. This finding has increased interest in smoking reduction as an interim step towards complete cessation.

Methods

This multi-center, double-blind placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nicotine 4 mg gum or nicotine 10 mg inhaler in helping smokers (N = 314) to reduce or quit smoking. It included smokers willing to control their smoking, and participants could set individual goals, to reduce or quit. The study was placebo-controlled, randomized in a ratio of 2:1 (Active:Placebo), and subjects could choose inhaler or gum after randomization. Outcome was short-term (from Week 6 to Month 4) and long-term (from Month 6 to Month 12) abstinence or reduction. Abstinence was defined as not a single cigarette smoked and expired CO readings of <10 ppm. Smoking reduction was defined as a reduction in number of cigarettes per day by 50% or more versus baseline, verified by a lower-than-baseline CO reading at each visit during the same periods.

Results

Significantly more smokers managed to quit in the Active group than in the Placebo group. Sustained abstinence rates at 4 months were 42/209 (20.1%) subjects in the Active group and 9/105 (8.6%) subjects in the Placebo group (p = 0.009). Sustained abstinence rates at 12 months were 39/209 (18.7%) and 9/105 (8.6%), respectively (p = 0.019). Smoking reduction did not differ between the groups, either at short-term or long-term. Twelve-month reduction results were 17.2% vs. 18.1%, respectively. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

In conclusion, treatment with 10 mg nicotine inhaler or 4 mg nicotine chewing gum resulted in a significantly higher abstinence rate than placebo. In addition a large number of smokers managed to reduce their cigarette consumption by more than 50% compared to baseline.

Efficacy of pharmacotherapies for short-term smoking abstinance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation has important immediate health benefits. The comparative short-term effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions is not well known. We aimed to determine the relative effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline at 4 weeks post-target quit date.

METHODS

We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to October 2008). We selected randomized clinical trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for our primary outcome of abstinence from smoking at at-least 4 weeks post-target quit date, with biochemical confirmation. We conducted random-effects odds ratio (OR) meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and calculated indirect comparisons.

RESULTS

We combined a total of 101 trials evaluating delivery of NRT versus inert controls at approximately 4 weeks post-target quit date (total n = 31,321). The pooled overall OR is OR 2.05 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.89-2.23, P =< 0.0001). We pooled data from 31 bupropion trials contributing a total n of 11,118 participants and found a pooled OR of 2.25 (95% CI, 1.94-2.62, P =< 0.0001). We evaluated 9 varenicline trials compared to placebo. Our pooled estimate for cessation at 4 weeks post-target quit date found a pooled OR of 3.16 (95% CI, 2.55-3.91, P =< 0.0001). Two trials evaluated head to head comparisons of varenicline and bupropion and found a pooled estimate of OR 1.86 (95% CI, 1.49-2.33, P =< 0.0001 at 4 weeks post-target quit date. Indirect comparisons were: NRT and bupropion, OR, 1.09, 95% CI, 0.93-1.31, P = 0.28; varenicline and NRT, OR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.23-1.96, P = 0.0002; and, varenicline and bupropion, OR 1.40, 95% CI, 1.08-1.85, P = 0.01.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapeutic interventions are effective for increasing smoking abstinence rates in the short-term.