E-cigarettes versus NRT for smoking reduction or cessation in people with mental illness: secondary analysis of data from the ASCEND trial

Efficacy of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation in populations with psychiatric and/or substance use problems: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

People with psychiatric and substance use disorders are more likely to smoke and less likely to quit than smokers in the general population. We evaluated the efficacy of e-cigarettes for abstinence from tobacco smoking in people with psychiatric and substance use problems.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected in the larger 'Efficacy, Safety, and Toxicology of ENDS as an Aid for Smoking Cessation' (ESTxENDS) trial (n=1246): the intervention group received e-cigarettes and e-liquids, plus standard-of-care smoking cessation counseling (SOC) for 6 months; the control group received SOC and a voucher. The primary outcome was biochemically validated continuous self-reported abstinence at 6 months; secondary outcomes included 6-month and 7-day self-reported abstinence. We calculated adjusted relative risks (ARR) for two subsamples meeting these conditions at the baseline visit: 1) psychotropic medication use; and 2) problematic substance or polysubstance use.

RESULTS

Among the participants using psychotropic medications (n=239), the ARR for validated abstinence was 2.62 (95% CI: 1.40-4.90) in the intervention group versus the control group, 2.95 (95% CI: 1.72-5.07) for 6-month and 2.96 (95% CI: 1.92-4.55) for 7-day self-reported abstinence, while among participants with problematic substance or polysubstance use (n=818), the ARR was 1.57 (95% CI: 1.20-2.04), 1.42 (95% CI: 1.15-1.74), and 1.53 (95% CI: 1.31-1.79), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding e-cigarettes to standard-of-care counseling increased the likelihood that participants with psychiatric and substance use problems would abstain from smoking, but larger studies should test the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation interventions in this often-marginalized population.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices that produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers, and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of using EC to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments, and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2024 and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, reference-checked, and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials randomizing people who smoke to an EC or control condition. We included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. We used the risk of bias tool (RoB 1) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Important outcomes were biomarkers, toxicants/carcinogens, and longer-term EC use. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 90 completed studies (two new to this update), representing 29,044 participants, of which 49 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated 10 (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 61 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. Nicotine EC results in increased quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (high-certainty evidence) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). The rate of occurrence of AEs is probably similar between groups (moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision)) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nicotine EC probably results in increased quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision) (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is probably little to no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (moderate-certainty evidence) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (low-certainty evidence due to issues with risk of bias) (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 6819 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 3 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; I2 = 6%; low-certainty evidence; 6 studies, 2351 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 4561 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes. There was inconsistency in the AE network, which was explained by a single outlying study contributing the only direct evidence for one of the nodes. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons; hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care or no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were, for the most part, wide for data on AEs, SAEs, and other safety markers, with no evidence for a difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT, but low-certainty evidence for increased AEs compared with behavioural support/no support. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longer, larger studies are needed to fully evaluate EC safety. Our included studies tested regulated nicotine-containing EC; illicit products and/or products containing other active substances (e.g. tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)) may have different harm profiles. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Providing an e-cigarette starter kit for smoking cessation and reduction as adjunct to usual care to smokers with a mental health condition: findings from the ESCAPE feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates in the UK have declined steadily over the past decades, masking considerable inequalities, as little change has been observed among people with a mental health condition. This trial sought to assess the feasibility and acceptability of supplying an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) starter kit for smoking cessation as an adjunct to usual care for smoking cessation, to smokers with a mental health condition treated in the community, to inform a future effectiveness trial.

METHODS

This randomised controlled feasibility trial, conducted March-December 2022, compared the intervention (e-cigarette starter kit with a corresponding information leaflet and demonstration with Very Brief Advice) with a 'usual care' control at 1-month follow-up. Participants were ≥ 18 years, receiving treatment for any mental health condition in primary or secondary care in three Mental Health Trusts in Yorkshire and one in London, UK. They were also willing to address their smoking through either cessation or reduction of cigarette consumption. The agreed primary outcome measure was feasibility (consent ~ 15% of eligible participants; attrition rate < 30%). Acceptability, validated sustained abstinence and ≥ 50% cigarette consumption reduction at 1-month, were also evaluated and qualitative interviews conducted to further explore acceptability in this population.

RESULTS

Feasibility targets were partially met; of 201 eligible participants, 43 (mean age = 45.2, SD = 12.7; 39.5% female) were recruited (21.4%) and randomised (intervention:48.8%, n = 21; control:51.2%, n = 22). Attrition rate was 37.2% at 1-month follow-up and was higher (45.5%) in the control group. At follow-up (n = 27), 93.3% (n = 14) in the intervention group and 25.0% (n = 3) in the control group reported e-cigarette use. The intervention was well received with minimal negative effects. In intention-to-treat analysis, validated sustained abstinence at 1-month was 2/21 (9.5%) and 0/22 (0%) and at least 50% reduction in cigarette consumption 13/21 (61.9%) and 3/22 (13.6%), for the intervention and control group, respectively. Qualitative analysis of participant interviews (N = 5) showed the intervention was broadly acceptable, but they also highlighted areas of improvements for the intervention and trial delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering an e-cigarette starter kit to smokers with a mental health condition treated in the community was acceptable and largely feasible, with harm reduction outcomes (i.e. switching from cigarette smoking to e-cigarette use and substantial reduction in cigarette consumption) favouring the intervention. The findings of the study will be used to help inform the design of a main trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registry: ISRCTN.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN17691451. Date of registration: 30/09/2021.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

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.

Smoke and mirrors: Support from psychiatrists for nicotine e-cigarette availability in Australia

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists' (RANZCP) 2018 position statement supports increased, regulated availability of e-cigarettes (ECs) as a harm-reduction measure and recommends further research into their use. Aligned with this recommendation, we aimed to critically evaluate the RANZCP's stance on this issue through a literature review focused on the areas identified in the position statement as requiring further investigation: (1) the adverse health effects attributable to ECs; (2) use of ECs for smoking cessation (particularly for people living with severe mental illness); and (3) EC-associated risks for nicotine naïve young people. We identified and summarised evidence of harm attributable to ECs that is particularly relevant to young people through direct adverse health sequelae, onset of nicotine dependence and increased risk of combustible cigarette (CC) use. A small number of studies suggest ECs can be used for harm-reduction purposes in people diagnosed with nicotine dependence and severe mental illness. However, these results must be considered alongside robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of existing pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in people with severe mental illness. The position statement is in urgent need of review in line with the available evidence.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Analyzing Trajectories of Acute Cigarette Reduction Post-Introduction of an E-Cigarette Using Ecological Momentary Assessment Data

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) may hold great potential for helping smokers transition off combustible cigarettes (CCs); however, little is known about the patterns that smokers follow when using an EC as a CC-substitute in order to ultimately reduce and quit smoking. Our primary aim in this study was to evaluate whether common patterns of CC use exist amongst individuals asked to substitute an EC for at least half of the CCs they would normally smoke. These patterns may elucidate the immediate switching and reduction behaviors of individuals using ECs as a reduction/cessation tool. This analysis uses data from a randomized controlled trial of 84 adult smokers assigned to receive either 4.5% nicotine or placebo (0% nicotine) EC. Participants were advised to use the EC to help them reach a 50% reduction in cigarettes-per-day (CPD) within 3 weeks. Longitudinal trajectory analysis was used to identify CPD reduction classes amongst the sample; participants clustered into four distinct, linear trajectories based on daily CC use during the 3-week intervention. Higher readiness to quit smoking, prior successful quit attempts, and lower baseline CC consumption were associated with assignment into "more successful" CC reduction classes. ECs may be a useful mechanism to promote CC reduction. This study demonstrates that a fine-grained trajectory approach can be applied to examine switching patterns in the critical first weeks of an attempt.

Do smokers' perceptions of the harmfulness of nicotine replacement therapy and nicotine vaping products as compared to cigarettes influence their use as an aid for smoking cessation? Findings from the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys

Introduction

This study examined whether smokers’ harm perceptions of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and nicotine vaping products (NVPs) relative to cigarettes predicted their subsequent use as smoking cessation aids during their last quit attempt (LQA).

Aims and Methods

We analyzed data from 1,315 current daily smokers (10+ cigarettes per day) who were recruited at Wave 1 (2016), and who reported making a quit attempt by Wave 2 (2018) of the International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States. We used multinomial logistic regression models to examine prospective associations between harm perceptions of (a) NRT and (b) NVPs and their use at LQA, controlling for socio-demographic and other potential confounders.

Results

Smokers who perceive that (a) NRT and (b) NVPs are much less harmful than cigarettes were more likely to subsequently use the respective product as an aid than using no aid or other aids during LQA (adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] = 3.79, 95%CI = 2.16–6.66; and aRRR = 2.11, 95%CI = 1.29–3.45, respectively) compared to smokers who perceive these products as equally or more harmful. Additionally, those who perceive NVPs as much less harmful than cigarettes were less likely to use NRT as a quit aid (aRRR = 0.34, 95%CI = 0.20–0.60). No country variations for these associations were found.

Conclusions

This study found that smokers’ perceptions of the harmfulness of (a) NRT and (b) NVPs relative to cigarettes predicted the respective product use when trying to quit smoking. Corrective education targeting misperceptions of nicotine products’ relative harmfulness may facilitate their use for smoking cessation.

Implications

Nicotine replacement therapy and nicotine vaping products are two commonly used smoking cessation aids. This study demonstrates that misperceptions of the harms of nicotine products relative to cigarettes influence their use for smoking cessation. Believing that nicotine vaping products are much less harmful than cigarette smoking may lead some smokers to prefer these products over nicotine replacement therapy to aid smoking cessation. Education targeting misperceptions of nicotine products’ harmfulness relative to cigarettes may enable smokers to make informed choices about which are appropriate to aid smoking cessation.

Electronic cigarette use and smoking cessation in cohort studies and randomized trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the association between e-cigarette use and subsequent smoking cessation in cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was finalized 11 November 2019 using EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed Health, NICE evidence search, PROSPERO, CRD, PsycInfo, and PubMed including Medline. Inclusion criteria were: reporting empirical results; longitudinal observational design with a minimum of 3 months of follow-up; including general population samples; and allowing for comparison between users and non-users of e-cigarettes. Studies rated as having high risk of bias were excluded. The procedures described by PRISMA were followed, and the quality of evidence was rated using GRADE.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight longitudinal, peer-reviewed publications from 26 cohort studies, and eight publications from seven RCTs assessing the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation were included in this review. A random-effects meta-analysis based on 39147 participants in cohort studies showed a pooled unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for smoking cessation among baseline e-cigarette users compared with baseline non-users of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.67-1.40), while the adjusted OR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.63-1.27). The pooled odds ratio for smoking cessation in RCTs was 1.78 (95% CI: 1.41-2.25). The evidence for cohort studies was graded as very low and for RCTs as low.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find quality evidence for an association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation. Although RCTs tended to support a more positive association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation than the cohort studies, the grading of evidence was consistently low.

[Contribution of electronic cigarettes in smoking patients with psychotic disorders. A literature review]

OBJECTIVES

This systematic literature review focused on patients suffering from schizophrenia (SZ), psychotic disorders or mental illness (MI) including SZ. It was interested in data on prevalence of electronic cigarette (EC) use, patient perceptions and expectations, as well as caregivers' attitudes towards the EC and its benefit in helping to stop or reduce smoking.

METHOD

The research was carried out on Medline for the period 2000-2020. Cross-sectional, case-control, prospective, randomized controlled studies and preliminary studies were included in this review.

RESULTS

EC is widely used by MI patients with current and lifetime use from 7.4% to 28.6%. More specifically, patients with SZ and schizoaffective disorders observe current and lifetime use from 7% to 36%, respectively. Many reasons are given by patients for its use including the possibility of using it in places where smoking is prohibited, its lower toxicity compared to cigarettes for oneself and those around, its lower cost, and the help provided to reduce consumption.

CONCLUSION

EC is used by smokers with MI; several studies confirm the possibility for these smokers to reduce tobacco consumption through EC and without disturbing their mental state. However, its value in helping to quit smoking remains uncertain.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Do the associations between the use of electronic cigarettes and smoking reduction or cessation attempt persist after several years of use? Longitudinal analyses in smokers of the CONSTANCES cohort

INTRODUCTION

We examined whether duration of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use could be associated with smoking reduction or cessation attempt.

METHODS

5,409 current smokers at baseline enrolled in the French CONSTANCES cohort in 2015 or 2016 were included. Duration of e-cigarette use was categorized as follows: never; former user for more than one year; former user for less than one year; new user for less than one year; return to use for less than one year; regular use for one to two years; regular use for more than two years. Two outcomes were considered at one-year of follow-up: change in the number of cigarettes per day and cessation attempt.

RESULTS

Compared to never users, former users had an increase in the number of cigarettes per day at follow-up (B = 0.95[95%CI:0.57-1.33] and B = 1.03[95%CI:0.47-1.59] for former users of more than one year and less than one year, respectively). Compared to never users, all categories of current users had a decrease in the number of cigarettes per day (B = -3.31[95%CI:-4.07;-2.54] and B = -4.18[95%CI:-5.06;-3.29] for new users of less than one year and users of more than two years, respectively). Compared to never users, former users had a decreased likelihood of cessation attempt (OR = 0.80[95%CI:0.67-0.95] and OR = 0.77[95%CI:0.60-0.99] for former users of more than one year and less than one year, respectively). Compared to never users, all categories of current users had an increased likelihood of cessation attempt (OR = 3.12[95%CI:2.32;4.19] and OR = 3.36[95%CI:2.39;4.72] for new users of less than one year and users of more than two years, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarette use was associated with smoking reduction and cessation attempt for individuals who have used it for less than one year and additional benefits are expected to occur with a longer duration of use. Former users of e-cigarettes had poorer outcomes than those who have never used them.

Effectiveness of Electronic Cigarettes in Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Reports of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes (ECs) for smoking cessation vary across different studies making implementation recommendations hard to attain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the current evidence regarding effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation.

METHODS

PubMed, PsycInfo, and Embase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing nicotine ECs with non-nicotine ECs or with established smoking cessation interventions (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] and or counseling) published between 1 January 2014 and 27 June 2020. Data from eligible studies were extracted and used for random-effects meta-analyses (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019141414).

RESULTS

The search yielded 13 950 publications with 12 studies being identified as eligible for systematic review (N = 8362) and 9 studies for random-effects meta-analyses (range: 30-6006 participants). The proportion of smokers achieving abstinence was 1.71 (95 CI: 1.02-2.84) times higher in nicotine EC users compared with non-nicotine EC users. The proportion of abstinent smokers was 1.69 (95 CI: 1.25-2.27) times higher in EC users compared with participants receiving NRT. EC users showed a 2.04 (95 CI: 0.90-4.64) times higher proportion of abstinent smokers in comparison with participants solely receiving counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that nicotine ECs may be more effective in smoking cessation when compared with placebo ECs or NRT. When compared with counseling alone, nicotine ECs are more effective short term, but its effectiveness appears to diminish with later follow-ups. Given the small number of studies, heterogeneous design, and the overall moderate to low quality of evidence, it is not possible to offer clear recommendations.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study do not allow for a conclusive argument. However, pooling current evidence points toward a potential for ECs as a smoking cessation tool. Though, given the overall quality of evidence, future studies should aim for more clarity in terms of interventions and larger study populations.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Harm Perceptions of E-cigarettes Among Smokers With and Without Mental Health Conditions in England: A Cross-Sectional Population Survey

INTRODUCTION

E-cigarettes (ECs) may benefit smokers with mental health conditions who are more likely to smoke, and smoke more heavily, than those without mental health conditions. This could be undermined if harm misperceptions in this group are high as is the case in the general population. This study aimed to assess EC harm perceptions relative to cigarettes as a function of mental health status and a variety of characteristics.

METHODS

Data were collected from 6531 current smokers in 2016/2017 in household surveys of representative samples of adults. The associations of mental health status (self-reported mental health condition and past year treatment), smoking and EC use characteristics, and characteristics relating to use of potential information sources with harm perceptions of ECs relative to cigarettes (measured by correct response "less harmful" vs. wrong responses "more harmful," "equally harmful," "don't know") were analyzed with logistic regression.

RESULTS

A similar proportion of smokers without mental health conditions (61.5%, 95% CI 60.1-62.9) and with mental health conditions (both with [61.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 58.7-63.8] and without past year treatment [61.5%, 95% CI 58.1-64.7]) held inaccurate EC harm perceptions (all P > 0.05). Being female, nonwhite, aged 25-34 compared with 16-24, from lower social grades (C2, D, and E), not having post-16 qualifications, no EC experience, a daily smoker, unmotivated to quit <1 month, non-internet user and non-broadsheet reader were all associated with more inaccurate harm perceptions (all p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of smokers in England have inaccurate harm perceptions of ECs regardless of mental health status.

IMPLICATIONS

This study is the first to use a nationally representative sample in order to investigate whether smokers with and without mental health conditions differ with regard to harm perceptions of ECs. Findings show that the majority of smokers in England hold inaccurate harm perceptions of ECs, and this does not differ as a function of mental health status. A number of characteristics associated with disadvantaged groups were significantly associated with inaccurate harm perceptions. These findings highlight the need to improve awareness and understanding among disadvantaged groups regarding the relative harms of ECs compared with tobacco.

Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

It has been estimated that in 2018 nearly 20% of adults in the US were currently using a tobacco product.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, and electronic cigarettes for tobacco cessation among adults, including pregnant persons, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, PsycInfo, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of Health Technology Assessment; surveillance through September 25, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Systematic reviews of tobacco cessation interventions and randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or pharmacotherapy among pregnant persons.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; qualitative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health outcomes, tobacco cessation at 6 months or more, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven reviews addressing pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions were included as well as 9 trials (N = 3942) addressing e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and 7 trials (N = 2285) of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use in pregnancy. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions (pooled risk ratio [RR], 1.83 [95% CI, 1.68-1.98]), NRT (RR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.49-1.61]), bupropion (RR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.52-1.77]), varenicline (RR, 2.24 [95% CI, 2.06-2.43]), and behavioral interventions such as advice from clinicians (RR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.58-1.96]) were all associated with increased quit rates compared with minimal support or placebo at 6 months or longer. None of the drugs were associated with serious adverse events. Five trials (n = 3117) reported inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes on smoking cessation at 6 to 12 months among smokers when compared with placebo or NRT, and none suggested higher rates of serious adverse events. Among pregnant persons, behavioral interventions were associated with greater smoking cessation during late pregnancy (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.23-1.48]), compared with no intervention. Rates of validated cessation among pregnant women allocated to NRT compared with placebo were not significantly different (pooled RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.79-1.56], n = 2033).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There is strong evidence that a range of pharmacologic and behavioral interventions, both individually and in combination, are effective in increasing smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults. In pregnancy, behavioral interventions are effective for smoking cessation, but data are limited on the use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Data on the effectiveness and safety of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation among adults are also limited and results are inconsistent.

Interventions for Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the US. In 2014, it was estimated that 480 000 deaths annually are attributed to cigarette smoking, including second hand smoke exposure. Smoking during pregnancy can increase the risk of numerous adverse pregnancy outcomes (eg, miscarriage and congenital anomalies) and complications in the offspring (including sudden infant death syndrome and impaired lung function in childhood). In 2019, an estimated 50.6 million US adults (20.8% of the adult population) used tobacco; 14.0% of the US adult population currently smoked cigarettes and 4.5% of the adult population used electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Among pregnant US women who gave birth in 2016, 7.2% reported smoking cigarettes while pregnant.

OBJECTIVE

To update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review to evaluate the benefits and harms of primary care interventions on tobacco use cessation in adults, including pregnant persons.

POPULATION

This recommendation statement applies to adults 18 years or older, including pregnant persons.

EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the net benefit of behavioral interventions and US Food and Drug Associated (FDA)-approved pharmacotherapy for tobacco smoking cessation, alone or combined, in nonpregnant adults who smoke is substantial. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the net benefit of behavioral interventions for tobacco smoking cessation on perinatal outcomes and smoking cessation in pregnant persons is substantial. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons is insufficient because few studies are available, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on the use of e-cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant persons, is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF has identified the lack of well-designed, randomized clinical trials on e-cigarettes that report smoking abstinence or adverse events as a critical gap in the evidence.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all adults about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions and FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for cessation to nonpregnant adults who use tobacco. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all pregnant persons about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions for cessation to pregnant persons who use tobacco. (A recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco cessation in pregnant persons. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of e-cigarettes for tobacco cessation in adults, including pregnant persons. The USPSTF recommends that clinicians direct patients who use tobacco to other tobacco cessation interventions with proven effectiveness and established safety. (I statement).

Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Novel Smoking Cessation App Designed for Individuals With Co-Occurring Tobacco Use Disorder and Serious Mental Illness

INTRODUCTION

High rates of tobacco use among people with serious mental illness (SMI), along with their unique needs, suggest the importance of developing tailored smoking cessation interventions for this group. Previous early-phase work empirically validated the design and content of Learn to Quit, a theory-based app designed for this population.

METHODS

In a pilot randomized controlled trial, we compared the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of Learn to Quit versus QuitGuide, an app designed for the general population. All participants received nicotine replacement therapy and technical assistance. Daily smokers with SMI (N = 62) participated in the trial with outcomes assessed at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16.

RESULTS

Compared to QuitGuide, Learn to Quit participants had similar number of days of app use (34 vs. 32, p = .754), but larger number of app interactions (335 vs. 205; p = .001), longer durations of app use (4.24 hrs. vs. 2.14 hrs; p = .044), and higher usability scores (85 vs. 79, p = .046). At week 16, Learn to Quit led to greater reductions in cigarettes per day (12.3 vs. 5.9 for QuitGuide; p = 0.10). Thirty-day point prevalence abstinence was verified in 12% of Learn to Quit participants versus 3% of QuitGuide participants (odds ratio = 3.86, confidence interval = 0.41 to 36, p = .239). Changes in psychiatric symptoms and adverse events were not clinically significant between conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot trial provides strong evidence of Learn to Quit's usability, feasibility, and safety. Preliminary evidence suggests the app may be efficacious. A randomized controlled efficacy trial is needed to test the app in a larger sample of smokers with SMI.

IMPLICATIONS

This study suggests that the Learn to Quit app is a feasible approach to deliver smoking cessation treatment in patients with co-occurring tobacco use disorder and SMI. This means that, if found efficacious, this technology could be used to deploy smoking cessation treatment to larger segments of this population, hence improving public health. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial should be conducted to examine the efficacy of this digital intervention.

Cigarette Use, E-Cigarette Use, and Dual Product Use Are Higher Among Adults With Serious Psychological Distress in the United States: 2014-2017

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette use is declining yet remains common among adults with mental health conditions. In contrast, e-cigarette use may be on the rise. This study investigated the relationship between serious psychological distress (SPD) and the exclusive and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes among US adults from 2014 to 2017.

AIMS AND METHODS

Data came from 2014 to 2017 National Health Interview Survey, an annual, cross-sectional survey of nationally representative samples of US adults (total combined analytic sample n = 125 302). Past-month SPD was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and cigarette and e-cigarette use were assessed at each wave. Logistic regressions examined product use by SPD status in 2017 and trends in product use by SPD status from 2014 to 2017. Analyses adjusted for demographic covariates.

RESULTS

The prevalence of cigarette use, e-cigarette use, and dual use was higher among adults with SPD than without SPD in each year including the most recent data year 2017 (cigarette use, 39.50% vs. 13.40%, p < .001; e-cigarette use, 7.41% vs. 2.65%, p < .001; dual use, 5.30% vs. 1.26%, p < .001). Among adults with SPD, the prevalence of cigarette, e-cigarette, and dual product use did not change from 2014 to 2017 in contrast to a decreasing prevalence in cigarette, e-cigarette, and dual product use among individuals without SPD.

CONCLUSIONS

US adults with SPD report higher levels of cigarette, e-cigarette, and dual product use than adults without SPD. Use of these products has not declined over the past several years in contrast to decreasing trends among adults without SPD.

IMPLICATIONS

These data extend our knowledge of tobacco product use and mental health disparities by showing that in addition to higher levels of cigarette use, US adults with SPD also use e-cigarettes and dual products (cigarette and e-cigarette) more commonly than those without SPD. Furthermore, the use of these products has not declined over the past several years in contrast to continuing declines among adults without SPD. More research is needed to understand the potential positive and negative consequences of e-cigarette use among adults with SPD.

Associations of history of mental illness with smoking and vaping among university students aged 18-24 years in New Zealand: Results of a 2018 national cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

Data on associations of history of mental illness (HMI) with smoking and vaping in New Zealand (NZ) are lacking. This study examines these associations in university students aged 18-24 years.

METHODS

Data came from a 2018 national cross-sectional study of university students and included information on demographic characteristics, smoking, vaping and participant health in the previous 12-months. χ² tests compared patterns of smoking and vaping, and logistic regression assessed associations of HMI with smoking and vaping, controlling for age, gender and ethnicity. An HMI was defined as a diagnosis/treatment for depression, anxiety/nervous disorder, or other mental health condition in the previous 12-months.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 1293 students: 61.3% aged 18-20; 62.8% female; 7.8% Māori, 92.2% non-Māori, and 18.5% reported an HMI. Smoking: 49.7% (95% CI 47.0-52.5) reported ever, 10.5% (8.9-12.3) current and 5.0% (3.9-6.4) daily smoking. Vaping: 38.7% (36.0-41.4) reported ever, 6.3% (5.1-7.8) current and 1.9% (1.3-2.8) daily vaping. Participants with HMI were significantly more likely to smoke: ever (64.9% vs 46.3%, p < .001), current (15.1% vs 9.5%, p = .011) and daily (7.5% vs 4.5%, p = .050), and vape: ever (49.4% vs 36.3%, p < .001) and current (9.2% vs 5.7%, p = .044) than participants without HMI. The model containing all predictors of HMI was significant, χ² (5, N = 1293) = 24.09, p < .001. Gender (OR 0.54, (0.4-0.75)), current smoking (OR 1.82, (1.19-2.78)) and current vaping (OR 1.73, (1.02-2.93)) made unique significant contributions to the model.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of smoking and vaping were significantly higher in students with HMI, and there were strong associations between HMI and smoking and vaping.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic cigarettes: A position statement from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand

The TSANZ develops position statements where insufficient data exist to write formal clinical guidelines. In 2018, the TSANZ addressed the question of potential benefits and health impacts of electronic cigarettes (EC). The working party included groups focused on health impacts, smoking cessation, youth issues and priority populations. The 2018 report on the Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes from the United States NASEM was accepted as reflective of evidence to mid-2017. A search for papers subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals was conducted in August 2018. A small number of robust and important papers published until March 2019 were also identified and included. Groups identified studies that extended, modified or contradicted the NASEM report. A total of 3793 papers were identified and reviewed, with summaries and draft position statements developed and presented to TSANZ membership in April 2019. After feedback from members and external reviewers, a collection of position statements was finalized in December 2019. EC have adverse lung effects and harmful effects of long-term use are unknown. EC are unsuitable consumer products for recreational use, part-substitution for smoking or long-term exclusive use by former smokers. Smokers who require support to quit smoking should be directed towards approved medication in conjunction with behavioural support as having the strongest evidence for efficacy and safety. No specific EC product can be recommended as effective and safe for smoking cessation. Smoking cessation claims in relation to EC should be assessed by established regulators.

Tobacco smoking, related harm and motivation to quit smoking in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

This narrative review focuses on the topic of tobacco smoking amongst people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and Scopus databases for schizophrenia spectrum disorders and smoking and included articles about the epidemiology of tobacco smoking in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, examining the relationship between smoking and mental health. This narrative review describes that a higher prevalence, frequency and impact of both high nicotine dependence and its harmful effects in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders compared with those in the general population. Despite several existent theories, the reasons for high smoking rates, the high dependence on nicotine and severity of nicotine withdrawal symptoms are not fully understood. The main aim of this paper is to inform mental health personnel and particularly clinical and health psychologists about the impact and role of tobacco smoking for smokers with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

Effects of 6-Week Use of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes in Smokers With Serious Mental Illness

INTRODUCTION

The US Food and Drug Administration is considering implementing a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes. Given the high rate of smoking among people with serious mental illness (SMI), it is important to examine the responses of these smokers to very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes.

METHODS

This trial compared the effects of VLNC (0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco) and normal nicotine content cigarettes (15.8 mg/g) over a 6-week period in non-treatment-seeking smokers with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder (n = 58). Linear regression was used to examine the effects of cigarette condition on cigarettes per day, subjective responses, nicotine and tobacco toxicant exposure, craving, withdrawal symptoms, and psychiatric symptoms.

RESULTS

At week 6, participants in the VLNC condition smoked fewer cigarettes per day, had lower breath carbon monoxide levels, lower craving scores, and rated their study cigarettes lower in satisfaction, reward, enjoyment, and craving reduction than those in the normal nicotine content condition (ps < .05). Week 6 psychiatric and extrapyramidal symptoms did not differ by condition, except for scores on a measure of parkinsonism, which were lower in the VLNC condition (p < .05). There were no differences across conditions on total nicotine exposure, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol, withdrawal symptoms, or responses to abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes would reduce smoking among smokers with SMI. However, the lack of effect on total nicotine exposure indicates VLNC noncompliance, suggesting that smokers with SMI may respond to a reduced-nicotine standard by substituting alternative forms of nicotine.

IMPLICATIONS

Results from this trial suggest that a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes would reduce smoking rates and smoke exposure in smokers with SMI, without increasing psychiatric symptoms. However, noncompliance with VLNC cigarettes was observed, suggesting that these smokers might respond to a reduced-nicotine standard by substituting alternative forms of nicotine.

Mental health professionals' perceptions, judgements and decision-making practices regarding the use of electronic cigarettes as a tobacco harm reduction intervention in mental healthcare: A qualitative focus group study

BACKGROUND

Smoking prevalence remains significantly higher among individuals with mental health conditions compared with the general population. Tobacco harm reduction (THR) in the form of replacing cigarettes for electronic cigarettes (ECs) is an alternative approach which may prove useful for these smokers who find it difficult to quit. Exploring how mental health professionals' (MHPs) perceive ECs, and how these influence decision making regarding their use in clinical settings is essential to determine the feasibility of incorporating ECs into the treatment pathway.

METHODS

We conducted six focus groups between March and August 2017. A total of 39 MHPs were recruited from mental healthcare services in England. Discussions were guided by a semi-structured guide, and responses were recorded, transcribed and coded using thematic framework analysis.

RESULTS

MHPs generally adopt a risk-averse approach when judging the safety and suitability of ECs. Risk-aversion was influenced by perceived obscurity surrounding ECs and THR, as well as high exposure to adverse and unreliable information regarding ECs, and perceived analogies between ECs and conventional cigarettes. Some MHPs adopt a pragmatic approach when making decisions based on THR and EC use in daily practice by considering the context of treatment and patient circumstances. However, this is often accompanied by a high degree of caution and misconceptions which limits the potential benefit this intervention could have in mental healthcare settings.

CONCLUSION

Improved dissemination of national guidance and scientific literature regarding THR and ECs is essential in mental healthcare to eliminate misconceptions and better inform MHPs evidence-based decision-making practices.

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.

Moderators of real-world effectiveness of smoking cessation aids: a population study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Understanding whether and how far smokers' characteristics influence the effectiveness of treatment may be important for tailoring recommendations on cessation aids to those most likely to help the user achieve abstinence. This study aimed to estimate the effectiveness of commonly used smoking cessation aids and test whether their effectiveness differs according to cigarette addiction, socio-economic status, age or sex.

DESIGN

Correlational design using cross-sectional survey data collected monthly between 2006 and 2018.

SETTING

England.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 18 929 adults (aged ≥ 16 years, 52.0% female) who had smoked within the previous 12 months and had made at least one quit attempt during that period.

MEASUREMENTS

The outcome was self-reported abstinence from quit date to survey. Independent variables were self-reported use during the most recent quit attempt of: prescription nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), NRT over-the-counter, varenicline, bupropion, e-cigarettes, face-to-face behavioural support, telephone support, written self-help materials, websites and hypnotherapy. Moderators were cigarette addiction, social grade, age and sex.

FINDINGS

After adjustment for covariates and use of other cessation aids, users of e-cigarettes [odds ratio (OR) = 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.69-2.24] and varenicline (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.51-2.21) had significantly higher odds of reporting abstinence than those who did not report use of these cessation aids. Use of prescription NRT was associated with increased abstinence in older (≥ 45 years) (OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.25-2.00) but not younger (< 45 years) smokers (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.85-1.42). Use of websites was associated with increased abstinence in smokers from lower (OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.22-3.98) but not higher social grades (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.40-1.38). There was little evidence of benefits of using other cessation aids.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of e-cigarettes and varenicline are associated with higher abstinence rates following a quit attempt in England. Use of prescription of nicotine replacement therapy is also associated with higher abstinence rates, but only in older smokers, and use of websites only in smokers from lower socio-economic status.

Characterizing e-cigarette use in veteran smokers with mental health conditions

Introduction

The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in smokers with mental health conditions (MHC) is not well understood.

Aims

This study aims to compare e-cigarette users and non-users among veteran smokers with MHC to characterize differences in smoking behavior, motivation to quit, psychological distress, primary psychiatric diagnosis, and other factors.

Methods

Baseline survey data were used from a randomized smoking cessation trial enrolling smokers with MHC from four Veterans Health Administration hospitals. Participants were categorized as current, former (having ever tried an e-cigarette), or never e-cigarette users. Pearson's χ2 and ANOVA Type-3 F-tests were used to test the bivariate associations between e-cigarette use and variables measured.

Results

Among 1,836 participants, mean age was 58 years (STD ± 12.5), 87% were male, 15% were current e-cigarette users (n = 275), and 27% were former users (n = 503). Sixty-five percent of e-cigarette users reported ‘wanting to quit smoking’ as a primary reason. Mean readiness to quit smoking (1–10) was 7.2, 6.8, and 6.4 for current, former, and never e-cigarette users, respectively (P = 0.0002). Sixty-three percent of current and former users and 55% of never-users reported some mental distress on Kessler-6 scale (P = 0.0003, OR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.7). A primary psychiatric diagnosis of alcohol or substance use disorder was recorded for 50% of current or former users and 60% of never-users (P = 0.0003, OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.56–0.84).

Conclusions

E-cigarette users were more ready to quit and most often reported using e-cigarettes to assist with quitting. E-cigarette users had more psychological distress and were less likely to have substance use disorders as their primary psychiatric diagnosis.

Electronic Cigarette Use During a Randomized Trial of Interventions for Smoking Cessation Among Medicaid Beneficiaries with Mental Illness

Objective: People with mental illness have high rates of cigarette smoking, but many wish to quit. Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has become increasingly common, especially among smokers who wish to quit, but research on whether this facilitates quitting has been mixed, and little research has examined e-cigarette use among smokers with mental illness. This secondary analysis examined the associations between spontaneous e-cigarette use during cessation treatment and 6-month outcomes within a cessation trial among Medicaid beneficiaries with mental illness. Main outcomes were previously reported. Methods: Adult Medicaid beneficiaries receiving mental health services were recruited between 2012 and 2015. Eligible daily smokers were randomized, using equipoise stratification, to one of six cessation treatment conditions (combinations of prescriber visit for pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, and abstinence incentives; e-cigarette use was not a recommended intervention). Presence of any self-reported e-cigarette use, all tobacco product use, quit attempts, and biologically verified abstinence were assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The 456 participants who completed the 6-month assessment were included in logistic regressions, adjusting for subject characteristics and treatment condition, examining associations between self-reported, spontaneous e-cigarette use and 6-month outcomes. We evaluated three outcomes: biologically verified abstinence at 6 months, quit attempts over the treatment period, and heavy smoking (≥20 cigarettes per day) at 6 months. Results: Any use of e-cigarettes was reported by 192 participants (42.1%) during the treatment period. Use of pharmacotherapy was not different between those who used e-cigarettes and those who did not use e-cigarettes. A total of 13.5% of participants (n = 61) had achieved biologically verified abstinence at the 6-month assessment. E-cigarettes were not significantly associated with biologically verified abstinence, use of cessation pharmacotherapy, self-reported quit attempts, or heavy smoking at the 6-month assessment. Conclusions: Spontaneous e-cigarette use during cessation treatment was common among smokers with mental illness and was not associated with positive or negative treatment outcomes. The high rate of naturalistic e-cigarette use in this group suggests that e-cigarettes are an appealing strategy to obtain nicotine during cessation treatment that could be harnessed as a smoking cessation tool or for harm reduction.

Modelling continuous abstinence rates over time from clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

It is useful, for theoretical and practical reasons, to be able to specify functions for continuous abstinence over time in smoking cessation attempts. This study aimed to find the best-fitting models of mean proportion abstinent with different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies up to 52 weeks from the quit date.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological treatments to aid smoking cessation. For comparability, we selected trials that provided 12 weeks of treatment. Continuous abstinence rates for each treatment at each follow-up point in trials were extracted along with methodological details of the trial. Data points for each pharmacotherapy at each follow-up point were aggregated where the total across contributing studies included at least 1000 participants per data point. Continuous abstinence curves were modelled using a range of different functions from the quit date to 52-week follow-up. Models were compared for fit using R2 and Bayesian information criterion (BIC).

RESULTS

Studies meeting our selection criteria covered three pharmacotherapies [varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and bupropion] and placebo. Power functions provided the best fit (R2  > 0.99, BIC < 17.0) to continuous abstinence curves from the target quit date in all cases except for varenicline, where a logarithmic function described the curve best (R2  = 0.99, BIC = 21.2). At 52 weeks, abstinence rates were 22.5% (23.0% modelled) for varenicline, 16.7% (16.0% modelled) for bupropion, 13.0% (12.4% modelled) for NRT and 8.3% (8.9% modelled) for placebo. For varenicline, bupropion, NRT and placebo, respectively, 55.9, 65.0, 62.3 and 56.5% of participants who were abstinent at the end of treatment were still abstinent at 52 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean continuous abstinence rates up to 52 weeks from initiation of smoking cessation attempts in clinical trials can be modelled using simple power functions for placebo, nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion and a logarithmic function for varenicline. This allows accurate prediction of abstinence rates from any time point to any other time point up to 52 weeks.

Are Electronic Cigarettes an Effective Aid to Smoking Cessation or Reduction Among Vulnerable Groups? A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Smoking prevalence remains high in some vulnerable groups, including those who misuse substances, have a mental illness, are homeless, or are involved with the criminal justice system. E-cigarette use is increasing and may support smoking cessation/reduction.

METHODS

Systematic review of quantitative and qualitative data on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation/reduction among vulnerable groups. Databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Open Grey. Narrative synthesis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data.

RESULTS

2628 records and 46 full texts were screened; 9 studies were identified for inclusion. Due to low quality of evidence, it is uncertain whether e-cigarettes are effective for smoking cessation in vulnerable populations. A moderate quality study suggested that e-cigarettes were as effective as nicotine replacement therapy. Four studies suggested significant smoking reduction; however, three were uncontrolled and had sample sizes below 30. A prospective cohort study found no differences between e-cigarette users and nonusers. No significant adverse events and minimal side effects were identified. Qualitative thematic synthesis revealed barriers and facilitators associated with each component of the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, and behavior) model, including practical barriers; perceptions of effectiveness for cessation/reduction; design features contributing to automatic and reflective motivation; smoking bans facilitating practical opportunity; and social connectedness increasing social opportunity.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to identify the most appropriate device types for practicality and safety, level of support required in e-cigarette interventions, and to compare e-cigarettes with current best practice smoking cessation support among vulnerable groups.

IMPLICATIONS

Smoking prevalence among people with mental illness, substance misuse, homelessness, or criminal justice system involvement remains high. E-cigarettes could support cessation. This systematic review found limited quantitative evidence assessing effectiveness. No serious adverse events were identified. Qualitative thematic synthesis revealed barriers and facilitators mapping to each component of the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, and behavior) model, including practical barriers; perceived effectiveness; design features contributing to automatic and reflective motivation; smoking bans facilitating practical opportunity; and social connectedness increasing social opportunity. Further research should consider appropriate devices for practicality and safety, concurrent support, and comparison with best practice smoking cessation support.

Effectiveness and safety of nicotine patches combined with e-cigarettes (with and without nicotine) for smoking cessation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Evidence indicates e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking; however, more confirmatory trials are needed. To date, no trials have evaluated the effectiveness and safety of combining nicotine patches with e-cigarettes (with and without nicotine) for smoking cessation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a pragmatic, three-arm, community-based, single-blind, randomised trial undertaken in New Zealand. Eligible participants are daily/non-daily smokers, aged ≥18 years, naive e-cigarette users and motivated to quit smoking in the next 2 weeks. Participants (n=1809), recruited using multi-media advertising, are randomised to 14 weeks of (1) 21 mg nicotine patches (n=201); (2) 21 mg nicotine patches+18 mg/mL nicotine e-cigarette (n=804); or (3) 21 mg nicotine patches+nicotine free e-cigarette (n=804). Participants receive weekly withdrawal-oriented behavioural support calls for 6 weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome is self-reported biochemically verified continuous abstinence (CA) at 6 months post quit-date. The primary comparison is nicotine patch + nicotine e-cigarette versus nicotine patch + nicotine free e-cigarette, and the secondary comparison is nicotine patch versus nicotine patch +nicotine e-cigarette (90% power, p=0.05, to detect an absolute difference in 6 month CA rates of 8% and 15% respectively). Secondary outcomes, collected by phone interview at quit date, then 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-quit date, include self-reported CA, 7 day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes per day (if smoking, or when smoking for non-daily smokers), time to relapse (if returned to smoking), belief in ability to quit, use of other cessation support, side effects/serious adverse events, treatment compliance, seeking additional support around e-cigarette use, daily use of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes, use of treatment past 14 weeks, views on treatment and recommendation to others, weight and cost-per-quitter.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Northern A Health and Disability Ethics Committee approved the trial. Findings will be disseminated through publication, conference/meeting presentations, and media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02521662; Pre-results.

Rates of electronic cigarette use among adults with a chronic mental illness

INTRODUCTION

Electronic cigarette (e-cig) use has increased dramatically over the past decade, rates of e-cig use among those with a chronic mental illness has largely been unexplored. Exploring this relationship for adults with a mental illness is necessary when examining the health needs of this population.

METHODS

Data from the 2016 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) was used to explore associations between e-cig use and chronic mental illness. E-cig use was explored in two different contexts, having tried an e-cig at least once and current e-cig use. Chronic mental illness was categorized as depression, anxiety, emotional disorder, or ADD, bipolar, schizophrenia, other disorder.

RESULTS

Rates of ever trying an e-cig and current e-cig use were higher among those with a chronic mental illness. Complex logistic regressions suggested having a chronic mental illness significantly increases the likelihood of both trying an e-cig and being an e-cig user.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased likelihood of e-cig use in chronic mental illness supports previous findings. This may be due to perceptions that e-cigs are less harmful and they provide ways of socially connecting with others.

IMPLICATIONS

Current knowledge surrounding e-cig use in this population is lacking. The 2016 NHIS allows for a nationally representative prediction of e-cig use in this population. This data is relevant in monitoring potential harm caused by e-cigs, in addition it may be helpful when assessing the value of e-cigs as a smoking cessation tool for those with a mental illness.

Are Australian smokers with mental illness receiving adequate smoking cessation and harm reduction information?

Provision of smoking cessation support in the form of advice and information is central to increasing quit rates, including among people with mental illness (MI), who have 3-5 times higher odds of smoking than those without MI. This study investigated the extent and perceived utility of quit smoking advice and information available to Australian smokers with MI through face-to-face, semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 29 current smokers with MI. Qualitative analysis identified four major sources of quit smoking advice and information: (i) mental health practitioners; (ii) Quitline; (iii) social networks; and (iv) Internet and media. All identified sources, including formal sources (mental health practitioners and Quitline), were perceived as providing inadequate information about quitting smoking, particularly regarding optimal usage of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Social networks emerged as a substantial source of quit smoking advice and information, especially for nontraditional methods such as vaping. Participants showed high interest in receiving support from peer-led smoking cessation groups. A minority of participants reported that they had received quit smoking information from Internet and media; this was largely restricted to negative reports about e-cigarettes and short advertisements for nicotine replacement therapy. Our findings suggest that more can be done to provide smokers with MI with practical smoking cessation advice and support. Comprehensive information resources tailored for smokers with MI should be developed and disseminated via multiple pathways. We also recommend a number of policy and practice reforms to promote smoking cessation among those with MI.

Managing nicotine without smoke to save lives now: Evidence for harm minimization

Tobacco control has made strides in prevention and cessation, but deaths will not decline rapidly without massive behavior change. Currently, inhaled smoke from combusting tobacco is chiefly responsible for prematurely killing 7.2 million people worldwide and 530,000 in the United States annually. An array of noncombustible nicotine products (NNPs) has emerged and has disrupted the marketplace. Saving lives more speedily will require societal acceptance of locating a "sweet spot" within a three-dimensional framework where NNPs are simultaneously: 1. Less toxic, 2. Appealing (can reach smokers at scale), and 3. Satisfying (adequate nicotine delivery) to displace smoking. For this harm minimization framework to eliminate smoking, a laser focus on "smoking control" (not general tobacco control) is needed. By adopting these economically viable NNPs as part of the solution, NNPs can be smoking control's valued ally. Synthesis of the science indicates that policy and regulation can sufficiently protect youth while speeding the switch away from smoking. Despite some risks of nicotine dependence that can be mitigated but not eliminated, no credible evidence counters the assertion that NNPs will save lives if they displace smoking. But scientific evidence and advocacy has selectively exaggerated NNP harms over benefits. Accurate communication is crucial to dispel the misperception of NNPs harms and reassure smokers they can successfully replace smoking cigarettes with NNPs. Saving more lives now is an attainable and pragmatic way to call for alignment of all stakeholders and factions within traditional tobacco control rather than perpetuate the unrealized and unrealizable perfection of nicotine prohibition.

Electronic nicotine devices to aid smoking cessation by alcohol- and drug-dependent clients: protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

Background

Up to 95% of people entering treatment for use of alcohol or other drugs (AOD) smoke tobacco. Smokers receiving treatment for AOD use are interested in quitting and make quit attempts, but relapse is more common and rapid compared with the general population of smokers. New ways to address smoking in this population are needed. Electronic nicotine devices (ENDs) or electronic cigarettes hold significant potential as both cessation aids and harm reduction support. This study focuses on the potential of ENDs to facilitate smoking cessation and to sustain it in the medium term among people in treatment for AOD use. The aim of this trial is to explore the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of ENDs for smoking cessation compared with combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for clients after discharge from a smoke-free AOD residential withdrawal service.

Methods/design

The study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. In total, 100 participants will be recruited following admission to a smoke-free residential withdrawal service in Melbourne, Australia. Participants will complete a baseline survey and be randomised to either the END group (n = 50) or the NRT group (n = 50) prior to discharge. Both groups will receive telephone counselling support from quitline. Follow-up measures will be assessed at 6 and 12 weeks following discharge. The primary outcome is continuous abstinence from smoking at 12 weeks post discharge. Secondary outcomes include: 7-day point prevalence from smoking, point prevalence abstinence from all nicotine (including NRT and ENDs), cravings and withdrawal, time to relapse, and treatment adherence (use of NRT, ENDs and quitline).

Discussion

This is the first randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of ENDs within a population dependent on AOD, a priority group with very high levels of smoking. The research will test a model of how to incorporate novel smoking cessation support into a period of high treatment receptiveness.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12617000849392. Registered on 8 June 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2786-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Existing and emerging smoking cessation options for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

Tobacco cigarette addiction is a deeply entrenched behavior among people with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders, and consequently these individuals die an average of 25 years earlier than the general population. The aim of this review was to evaluate the state-of-the-science focused on cessation and reduction interventions for people with SSD. We searched peer-reviewed articles from medline, psycinfo, web of science, scopus, and cochrane library, about cessation interventions for people with SSD. The search was carried out by combining an exhaustive list of terms denoting schizophrenic disorder and smoking cessation treatment. The review search period was limited from January 2000-November 2018, 260 studies were identified and a total of 24 of studies were included in the final review. This review demonstrates the vulnerability of smokers with SSD and underscores the need for research in these areas with large enough sample sizes to detect treatment effects: 1) outcomes using and comparing standard treatments 2) long-term cessation/reduction outcomes 3) flexible treatment options 4) more research to develop the evidence-base for e-cigarettes intervention.

Self-perceived Mental Health and Population-level Tobacco Use Disparities

Objectives

Poor mental health is associated with increased cigarette smoking, yet whether this extends to alternative tobacco product use remains unknown.

Methods

Wave 1 data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study assessed relationships between self-perceived mental health (SPMH) and prevalence of and motives for tobacco use among US adults (N = 32,320).

Results

Fair/poor SPMH, as compared to good/excellent SPMH, was associated with increased current cigarette (AOR = 2.91, 95% CI = 2.64, 3.20), e-cigarette (AOR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.20, 1.53), cigarillo (AOR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.22, 1.56), filtered cigar (AOR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.21, 1.70), and smokeless tobacco (AOR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.36), but not traditional cigar use (AOR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.90, 1.20). Whereas most motives for tobacco use were similar across SPMH rating, those with fair/poor SPMH, as compared to good/excellent SPMH, were more likely to report using traditional cigars due to affordability (AOR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.23, 1.98) and e-cigarettes (AOR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.15, 1.79) and smokeless tobacco (AOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.19, 2.83) due to appealing advertising.

Conclusions

Although individuals with poor SPMH are more likely to use alternative tobacco products than those with better SPMH, most motives for use are strikingly similar. These findings highlight the importance of continual monitoring of tobacco use trends among vulnerable populations.

Weighing the Risks and Benefits of Electronic Cigarette Use in High-Risk Populations

This article reviews the current evidence on electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) safety and efficacy for smoking cessation, with a focus on smokers with cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, or serious mental illness. In the United States, adult smokers use e-cigarettes primarily to quit or reduce cigarette smoking. An understanding of the potential risks and benefits of e-cigarette use may help clinicians counsel smokers about the potential impact of e-cigarettes on health.

The effectiveness and safety of combining varenicline with nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation in people with mental illnesses and addictions: study protocol for a randomised-controlled trial

Background

Smoking rates are higher in New Zealand (NZ) adults with mental illnesses and alcohol and other drug (AOD) addictions, compared to the overall population. Quit attempts using “gold standard” smoking cessation treatments often fail in people with these conditions, so more flexible treatment regimens that adapt to a person’s responsiveness to treatment are worth investigating. The STATUS trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combining varenicline with nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation among varenicline non-responders in treatment for mental health illnesses and/or AOD addictions.

Methods

This is a pragmatic two-arm, open-label, randomised trial. Participants will be daily smokers using mental health and/or addiction services in Auckland, aged ≥18 years, motivated to quit smoking, and eligible to access varenicline through the NZ special authority process. After 2 weeks of using varenicline plus behavioural support, participants who have not reduced their daily smoking by ≥50% will be randomised (1:1) to either 10 weeks of continued varenicline use or 10 weeks of varenicline plus an 18 mg/mL nicotine e-cigarette. All participants will receive weekly withdrawal-orientated behavioural support calls for 6 weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome is self-reported biochemically-verified (exhaled carbon monoxide) continuous abstinence at 24 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes, measured at six, 12 and 24 weeks post-randomisation include: self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, smoking reduction, time to relapse, cross-over, use of other smoking cessation support, serious adverse events, treatment adherence, compliance, acceptability, dual use, continuation of treatment use, mental illness symptoms and AOD use, health-related quality of life, and cost-analysis. A sample size of 338 will confer 80% power (p = 0.05) to detect a 15% absolute difference between the varenicline alone and varenicline plus e-cigarette groups.

Discussion

People with mental illness and/or AOD addictions are just as motivated as others to quit smoking, but are less likely to succeed. Adapting smoking cessation medication after a lack of responsiveness in the first 2 weeks of initial treatment in this priority population by adding a nicotine e-cigarette may be one way to increase long-term quit rates.

Trial Registration

Australian NZ Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616001355460 (29 September 2016).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5351-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Do Electronic Cigarettes Have a Role in Tobacco Cessation?

Tobacco use continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Even with behavioral and pharmacologic treatment, long-term tobacco cessation rates are low. Electronic nicotine delivery systems, commonly referred to as electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes, are increasingly used for tobacco cessation. Because e-cigarettes are widely used in this setting, health care professionals need to know if they are safe and effective. The purpose of this article is to review literature regarding use of e-cigarettes as a tool for tobacco cessation in patients who are ready to quit, as well as those who are not ready to quit, along with some selected patient populations. The safety and clinical implications of e-cigarette use are also reviewed. Small, short-term studies assessing smokers' use of e-cigarettes suggest that e-cigarettes may be well tolerated and modestly effective in achieving abstinence. High-quality studies are lacking to support e-cigarettes use for cessation in patients with mental health issues. One small prospective cohort study concluded that patients with mental health issues reduced cigarette use with e-cigarette use. Although one study found that patients with cancer reported using e-cigarettes as a tobacco-cessation strategy, e-cigarettes were not effective in supporting abstinence 6 and 12 months later. Additional research is needed to evaluate the use of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation in patients with pulmonary diseases. No data exist to describe the efficacy of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation in pregnant women. Although study subjects report minimal adverse effects with e-cigarettes and the incidence of adverse effects decreases over time, long-term safety data are lacking. Health care providers should assess e-cigarette use in their patients as part of the tobacco cessation process.

Harm Minimization and Tobacco Control: Reframing Societal Views of Nicotine Use to Rapidly Save Lives

Inhalation of the toxic smoke produced by combusting tobacco products, primarily cigarettes, is the overwhelming cause of tobacco-related disease and death in the United States and globally. A diverse class of alternative nicotine delivery systems (ANDS) has recently been developed that do not combust tobacco and are substantially less harmful than cigarettes. ANDS have the potential to disrupt the 120-year dominance of the cigarette and challenge the field on how the tobacco pandemic could be reversed if nicotine is decoupled from lethal inhaled smoke. ANDS may provide a means to compete with, and even replace, combusted cigarette use, saving more lives more rapidly than previously possible. On the basis of the scientific evidence on ANDS, we explore benefits and harms to public health to guide practice, policy, and regulation. A reframing of societal nicotine use through the lens of harm minimization is an extraordinary opportunity to enhance the impact of tobacco control efforts.

How do we determine the impact of e-cigarettes on cigarette smoking cessation or reduction? Review and recommendations for answering the research question with scientific rigor

AIMS

To propose a hierarchy of methodological criteria to consider when determining whether a study provides sufficient information to answer the question of whether e-cigarettes can facilitate cigarette smoking cessation or reduction.

DESIGN

A PubMed search to 1 February 2017 was conducted of all studies related to e-cigarettes and smoking cessation or reduction.

SETTINGS

Australia, Europe, Iran, Korea, New Zealand and the United States.

PARTICIPANTS AND STUDIES

91 articles.

MEASUREMENTS

Coders organized studies according to six proposed methodological criteria: (1) examines outcome of interest (cigarette abstinence or reduction), (2) assesses e-cigarette use for cessation as exposure of interest, (3) employs appropriate control/comparison groups, (4) ensures that measurement of exposure precedes the outcome, (5) evaluates dose and duration of the exposure and (6) evaluates the type and quality of the e-cigarette used.

FINDINGS

Twenty-four papers did not examine the outcomes of interest. Forty did not assess the specific reason for e-cigarette use as an exposure of interest. Twenty papers did not employ prospective study designs with appropriate comparison groups. The few observational studies meeting some of the criteria (duration, type, use for cessation) triangulated with findings from three randomized trials to suggest that e-cigarettes can help adult smokers quit or reduce cigarette smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a small proportion of studies seeking to address the effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation or reduction meet a set of proposed quality standards. Those that do are consistent with randomized controlled trial evidence in suggesting that e-cigarettes can help with smoking cessation or reduction.

Australian mental health care practitioners' practices and attitudes for encouraging smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction in smokers with severe mental illness

Reducing the burden of physical illness among people living with severe mental illnesses (SMI) is a key priority. Smoking is strongly associated with SMIs resulting in excessive smoking related morbidity and mortality in smokers with SMI. Smoking cessation advice and assistance from mental health practitioners would assist with reducing smoking and smoking-related harms in this group. This study examined the attitudes and practices of Australian mental health practitioners towards smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction for smokers with SMI, including adherence to the 5As (ask, assess, advise, assist and arrange follow up) of smoking cessation. We surveyed 267 Australian mental health practitioners using a cross-sectional, online survey. Most practitioners (77.5%) asked their clients about smoking and provided health education (66.7%) but fewer provided direct assistance (31.1-39.7%). Most believed that tobacco harm reduction strategies are effective for reducing smoking related risks (88.4%) and that abstinence from all nicotine should not be the only goal discussed with smokers with SMI (77.9%). Many respondents were unsure about the safety (56.9%) and efficacy (39.3%) of e-cigarettes. Practitioners trained in smoking cessation were more likely (OR: 2.9, CI: 1.5-5.9) to help their clients to stop smoking. Community mental health practitioners (OR: 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.9) and practitioners who were current smokers (OR: 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.9) were less likely to adhere to the 5As of smoking cessation intervention. The results of this study emphasize the importance and need for providing smoking cessation training to mental health practitioners especially community mental health practitioners.

An appraisal of practice guidelines for smoking cessation in people with severe mental illness

OBJECTIVE

To review the quality of current smoking cessation guidelines that include recommendations for people with severe mental illness.

METHODS

A systematic search of scientific databases, central government health authority websites, psychiatry peak bodies, guideline clearing houses and Google was undertaken for relevant smoking cessation guidelines. Three reviewers independently assessed guideline quality using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II) instrument. Two reviewers extracted recommendations specific to smokers with severe mental illness.

RESULTS

Thirteen guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Seven guidelines scored ⩾60% in at least four domains. Median scores for 'Editorial independence', 'Rigour of development', 'Stakeholder Involvement' and 'Applicability' were less than 60%. The highest median scores were for 'Scope and purpose' (87%, 69-96%) and 'Clarity of presentation' (87%, 56-98%). 'Editorial independence' (33.3%, 0-86%) and 'Rigour of development' (54%, 11-92%) had the lowest median domain scores. The guidelines varied greatly in their recommendations but the majority recommended nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion or varenicline as first-line pharmacotherapy, along with behavioural support.

CONCLUSION

Many guidelines did not adequately report their methods or the competing interests of the authors. Future guidelines development may benefit from more specifically addressing AGREE II criteria and the needs of smokers with severe mental illness.

Improving life expectancy in people with serious mental illness: should we place more emphasis on primary prevention?

People with serious mental illness have a reduced life expectancy that is partly attributable to increased cardiovascular disease. One approach to address this is regular physical health monitoring. However, physical health monitoring is poorly implemented in everyday clinical practice and there is little evidence to suggest that it improves physical health. We argue that greater emphasis should be placed on primary prevention strategies such as assertive smoking cessation, dietary and exercise interventions and more judicious psychotropic prescribing.