E-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement treatment as harm reduction interventions for smokers who find quitting difficult: randomized controlled trial

Sentiment analysis of COP9-related tweets: a comparative study of pre-trained models and traditional techniques

Introduction

Sentiment analysis has become a crucial area of research in natural language processing in recent years. The study aims to compare the performance of various sentiment analysis techniques, including lexicon-based, machine learning, Bi-LSTM, BERT, and GPT-3 approaches, using two commonly used datasets, IMDB reviews and Sentiment140. The objective is to identify the best-performing technique for an exemplar dataset, tweets associated with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Ninth Conference of the Parties in 2021 (COP9).

Methods

A two-stage evaluation was conducted. In the first stage, various techniques were compared on standard sentiment analysis datasets using standard evaluation metrics such as accuracy, F1-score, and precision. In the second stage, the best-performing techniques from the first stage were applied to partially annotated COP9 conference-related tweets.

Results

In the first stage, BERT achieved the highest F1-scores (0.9380 for IMDB and 0.8114 for Sentiment 140), followed by GPT-3 (0.9119 and 0.7913) and Bi-LSTM (0.8971 and 0.7778). In the second stage, GPT-3 performed the best for sentiment analysis on partially annotated COP9 conference-related tweets, with an F1-score of 0.8812.

Discussion

The study demonstrates the effectiveness of pre-trained models like BERT and GPT-3 for sentiment analysis tasks, outperforming traditional techniques on standard datasets. Moreover, the better performance of GPT-3 on the partially annotated COP9 tweets highlights its ability to generalize well to domain-specific data with limited annotations. This provides researchers and practitioners with a viable option of using pre-trained models for sentiment analysis in scenarios with limited or no annotated data across different domains.

Topic prediction for tobacco control based on COP9 tweets using machine learning techniques

The prediction of tweets associated with specific topics offers the potential to automatically focus on and understand online discussions surrounding these issues. This paper introduces a comprehensive approach that centers on the topic of "harm reduction" within the broader context of tobacco control. The study leveraged tweets from the period surrounding the ninth Conference of the Parties to review the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (COP9) as a case study to pilot this approach. By using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)-based topic modeling, the study successfully categorized tweets related to harm reduction. Subsequently, various machine learning techniques were employed to predict these topics, achieving a prediction accuracy of 91.87% using the Random Forest algorithm. Additionally, the study explored correlations between retweets and sentiment scores. It also conducted a toxicity analysis to understand the extent to which online conversations lacked neutrality. Understanding the topics, sentiment, and toxicity of Twitter data is crucial for identifying public opinion and its formation. By specifically focusing on the topic of "harm reduction" in tweets related to COP9, the findings offer valuable insights into online discussions surrounding tobacco control. This understanding can aid policymakers in effectively informing the public and garnering public support, ultimately contributing to the successful implementation of tobacco control policies.

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.

Clinical study protocol on electronic cigarettes and nicotine pouches for smoking cessation in Pakistan: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pakistan is one of most vulnerable low- and middle-income countries with 29 million adult active tobacco users. Smoking cessation services are lacking as the tobacco control initiatives have largely failed to address the smoking endemic. Over the last 5 years, Pakistan has witnessed the use of innovative tobacco harm reduction (THR) products such as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. However, their use remains limited. THR products are imported legally as consumer goods and are taxable. The lack of sufficient data for THR and its application is a challenge in gauging their effectiveness in assisting smokers quit combustible smoking. Evidence-based studies can help in measuring the effectiveness of e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches as smoking cessation aids.

METHOD

Keeping in view the study objectives, a sample size of 600 participants will be sufficient to assess the effectiveness of e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches for smoking cessation in Pakistan. Of these, 200 participants each will receive e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches along with basic care counselling, while the remaining 200 participants will only receive basic care counselling for 48 weeks. The association of participants' characteristics with smoking and health status will be based on the bivariate and multivariate analysis. The simple t-test and variance analysis will assess the differences in intervention indicators between the control and treatment groups. For the inferential analysis, the average treatment impact will be based on the quasi-experimental techniques such as difference in difference (DID) or propensity score matching (PMS).

DISCUSSION

The study will evaluate the participants at the baseline as they decide the quit date. After every 12 weeks, a follow-up survey with the participants will be conducted. Results are anticipated to inform the public, decision-makers, and researchers about the effects of using e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches in the short- and medium-term periods. Critically, the potential of e-cigarettes and other alternative nicotine delivery systems as smoking cessation aid will be assessed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05715164 . Registered on February 6, 2023.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Protocol version 1.0, 14-12-2022 Trial in progress and not yet recruiting participants. Estimated primary data collection date-April 2024.

Public perceptions of the FDA's marketing authorization of Vuse on Twitter/X

Introduction

On October 12, 2021, the FDA issued its first marketing granted orders for Vuse, the e-cigarette product by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company. The public perceptions and reactions to the FDA's Vuse authorization are prevalent on social media platforms such as Twitter/X. We aim to understand public perceptions of the FDA's Vuse authorization in the US using Twitter/X data.

Methods

Through the Twitter/X streaming API (Application Programming Interface), 3,852 tweets between October 12, 2021, and October 23, 2021, were downloaded using the keyword of Vuse. With the elimination of retweets, irrelevant tweets, and tweets from other countries, the final dataset consisted of 523 relevant tweets from the US. Based on their attitudes toward the FDA authorization on Vuse, these tweets were coded into three major categories: positive, negative, and neutral. These tweets were further manually classified into different categories based on their contents.

Results

There was a large peak on Twitter/X mentioning FDA's Vuse authorization on October 13, 2021, just after the authorization was announced. Of the 523 US tweets related to FDA's Vuse authorization, 6.12% (n=32) were positive, 26.77% (n=140) were negative, and 67.11% (n=351) were neutral. In positive tweets, the dominant subcategory was Cessation Claims (n=18, 56.25%). In negative tweets, the topics Health Risk (n=43, 30.71%), Criticize Authorization (n=42, 30.00%), and Big Tobacco (n=40, 38.57%) were the major topics. News (n=271, 77.21%) was the most prevalent topic among neutral tweets. In addition, tweets with a positive attitude tend to have more likes.

Discussion

Public perceptions and discussions on Twitter/X regarding the FDA's Vuse authorization in the US showed that Twitter/X users were more likely to show a negative than a positive attitude with a major concern about health risks.

Switching away from smoking at 12 months among adult JUUL users varying in recent history of quit attempts made with and without smoking cessation medication

Some smokers switch away from smoking using e-cigarettes, but guidelines recommend trying approved medications first. We analyzed switching in adult smokers using JUUL by their recent history of quit attempts and use of smoking cessation medications. Participants were 8511 adult (21+) established smokers (at baseline), in which 50.3% are daily smokers, in a longitudinal observational study who completed a survey 12 months after first purchasing a JUUL Starter Kit. At baseline, participants reported attempts to quit smoking in the prior year and use of pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] or prescription medication) in their most recent attempt. The outcomes were switching (self-reported no past-30-day smoking) and 50%+ reductions in cigarette consumption. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for baseline covariates. Two thirds of the participants had made a quit attempt in the year before purchasing JUUL. Overall, 59% [58%, 60%] had switched at 12 months. Switching was more likely in those who had used NRT and who attempted quitting without medication versus those who used prescription medications or made no quit attempt. In adjusted multivariable analyses, only making a past-year quit attempt (vs. not) was associated with higher odds of switching (OR = 1.15 [1.04, 1.28]). Over 60% of dual users reduced cigarette consumption by ≥50%. These associations were largely similar in daily smokers. Twelve months after purchasing JUUL, almost all smokers reported either switching or reducing their smoking by 50%+, including those who had recently failed to quit smoking with approved pharmacotherapies. E-cigarettes provide an alternative route to abstinence from smoking for smokers with a history of cessation and cessation treatment failure.

Helping pregnant smokers quit: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy

Background

Some pregnant smokers try e-cigarettes, but effectiveness and safety of such use are unknown.

Objectives

To compare effectiveness and safety of nicotine patches and e-cigarettes in pregnancy.

Design

A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Twenty-three hospitals across England, and a Stop Smoking Service in Scotland.

Participants

One thousand one hundred and forty pregnant daily smokers (12-24 weeks' gestation) motivated to stop smoking, with no strong preference for using nicotine patches or e-cigarettes.

Interventions

Participants in the e-cigarette arm were posted a refillable e-cigarette device with two 10 ml bottles of tobacco-flavoured e-liquid (18 mg nicotine). Participants in the nicotine patches arm were posted a 2-week supply of 15 mg/16-hour nicotine patches. Supplies were provided for up to 8 weeks. Participants sourced further supplies themselves as needed. Participants in both arms received support calls prior to their target quit date, on the quit date, and weekly for the next 4 weeks.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome was validated prolonged abstinence at the end of pregnancy. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included self-reported abstinence at different time points, treatment adherence and safety outcomes.

Results

Only 55% of self-reported abstainers mailed back useable saliva samples. Due to this, validated sustained abstinence rates were low (6.8% vs. 4.4% in the e-cigarettes and nicotine patches arms, respectively, risk ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.53; Bayes factor = 2.7). In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis that excluded abstainers using non-allocated products, the difference became significant (6.8% vs. 3.6%, risk ratio = 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 3.26; Bayes factor = 10). Almost a third of the sample did not set a target quit date and the uptake of support calls was low, as was the initial product use. At end of pregnancy, 33.8% versus 5.6% of participants were using their allocated product in the e-cigarettes versus nicotine patches arm (risk ratio = 6.01, 95% confidence interval 4.21 to 8.58). Regular use of e-cigarettes in the nicotine patches arm was more common than use of nicotine replacement products in the e-cigarette arm (17.8% vs. 2.8%). Rates of adverse events and adverse birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms, apart from participants in the e-cigarette arm having fewer infants with low birthweight (<2500 g) (9.6% vs. 14.8%, risk ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.90; Bayes factor = 10.3).

Limitations

Low rates of validation reduced the study power. A substantial proportion of participants did not use the support on offer sufficiently to test its benefits. Sample size may have been too small to detect differences in less frequent adverse effects.

Conclusions

E-cigarettes were not significantly more effective than nicotine patches in the primary analysis, but when e-cigarettes use in the nicotine patches arm was accounted for, e-cigarettes were almost twice as effective as patches in all abstinence outcomes. In pregnant smokers seeking help, compared to nicotine patches, e-cigarettes are probably more effective, do not pose more risks to birth outcomes assessed in this study and may reduce the incidence of low birthweight.

Future work

Routine monitoring of smoking cessation and birth outcomes in pregnant women using nicotine patches and e-cigarettes and further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN62025374 and Eudract 2017-001237-65.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An exploration of flavours in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation: secondary analyses of a systematic review with meta-analyses

AIMS

To estimate associations between e-cigarette flavour and smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a living systematic review, with meta-analyses and narrative synthesis, incorporating data up to January 2022. Included studies provided people who smoked combustible cigarettes with nicotine e-cigarettes for the purpose of smoking cessation compared with no treatment or other stop smoking interventions. Measurements included smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); and flavour use at any time-points.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies (n = 10 336); 14 contributed to subgroup analyses and 10 provided participants with a choice of e-cigarette flavour. We judged nine, five and two studies at high, low and unclear risk of bias, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed no clear associations between flavour and cessation or product use. In all but one analysis, tests for subgroup differences resulted in I2 values between 0 and 35%. In the comparison between nicotine e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (I2  = 65.2% for subgroup differences), studies offering tobacco flavour e-cigarettes showed evidence of a greater proportion of participants still using at 6 months or longer (RR = 3.81; 95% CI = 1.45-10.05; n = 1181; I2  = 84%), whereas there was little evidence for greater 6-month use when studies offered a choice of flavours (RR = 1.44; 95% CI = 0.80-2.56; n = 454; I2  = 82%). However, substantial statistical heterogeneity within subgroups makes interpretation of this result unclear. In the 10 studies where participants had a choice of flavours, and this was tracked over time, some switching between flavours occurred, but there were no clear patterns in flavour preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not appear to be a clear association between e-cigarette flavours and smoking cessation or longer-term e-cigarette use, possibly due to a paucity of data. There is evidence that people using e-cigarettes to quit smoking switch between e-cigarette flavours.

E-cigarettes and asthma in adolescents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

E-cigarettes have been long purported to be a mechanism of harm reduction in current smokers. However, market expansion to adolescents has been aggressive, despite government interventions. Research examining the adverse effects of e-cigarettes in teens with asthma has been limited. We discuss the most recent data on the pulmonary manifestations of e-cigarettes use and exposure in adolescents with asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adolescents with asthma are more likely to be e-cigarette users than those without asthma and more likely to have asthma exacerbations. Increased pulmonary inflammatory cytokines have been seen in e-cigarette users and mouse models. Yet, providers are not confident in e-cigarette screening and counselling despite acknowledging adolescents are using e-cigarettes regularly.

SUMMARY

Since the introduction of e-cigarettes into the United States market in 2007, adolescents use of these products has risen, even after a brief decline during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. This review will describe the most recent studies on e-cigarette use trends, cytotoxicity of e-cigarette aerosol and associations with the diagnosis and symptoms of asthma. Knowledge gaps, advocacy efforts, evidence on e-cigarette cessation will be highlighted.

Current Evidence on Tobacco Harm Reduction in Pneumology: Interviews with Two Key Opinion Leaders

The negative impact of smoking on the lung is well documented. Cigarette smoke is the cause of 90% of cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. COPD is a progressive and debilitating condition with morbidity and mortality rates similar to myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Despite the widely recognised risks, millions of people continue to smoke, in some cases even after receiving a diagnosis of COPD and despite knowing that the habit will accelerate disease progression. While there is no doubt that smoking cessation is the most important health intervention for all cigarette smokers, it can be challenging. Nicotine addiction, social norms and culture, and the length of time it can take smokers to feel the adverse consequences of the habit all contribute to the high cessation failure rate. However, increasing clinical and epidemiological evidence indicates that for those who are unwilling or cannot stop smoking, harm reduction strategies can help reduce exposure to the harmful chemicals and carcinogens released during tobacco combustion. Electronic devices heat processed tobacco without combusting it to deliver an aerosol containing fewer toxic products or harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHC) than cigarette smoke. Clinical evidence to support their use is growing. In Japan, for example, a decrease in hospitalisations due to COPD exacerbation after the introduction of such heat-not-burn (HNB), or tobacco heating systems (THS), has been reported. In this article, Wolfgang Popp, Döbling Doctor’s Center, Privatklinik Döbling, Vienna, Austria, and Klara Szondy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, discuss the impact of cigarette smoke on the lung, and how to support smoking cessation in those willing and able to quit smoking. They also explain when strategies that reduce the harmful effects of smoking may be useful, and outline the latest evidence supporting the use of HNB systems.

Longer-term use of electronic cigarettes when provided as a stop smoking aid: Systematic review with meta-analyses

Moderate certainty evidence supports use of nicotine electronic cigarettes to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. However, there is less certainty regarding how long people continue to use e-cigarettes after smoking cessation attempts. We set out to synthesise data on the proportion of people still using e-cigarettes or other study products at 6 months or longer in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. We updated Cochrane searches (November 2021). For the first time, we meta-analysed prevalence of continued e-cigarette use among individuals allocated to e-cigarette conditions, and among those individuals who had successfully quit smoking. We updated meta-analyses comparing proportions continuing product use among individuals allocated to use nicotine e-cigarettes and other treatments. We included 19 studies (n = 7787). The pooled prevalence of continued e-cigarette use at 6 months or longer was 54% (95% CI: 46% to 61%, I2 86%, N = 1482) in participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions. Of participants who had quit combustible cigarettes overall 70% were still using e-cigarettes at six months or longer (95% CI: 53% to 82%, I2 73%, N = 215). Heterogeneity in direction of effect precluded meta-analysis comparing long-term use of nicotine e-cigarettes with NRT. More people were using nicotine e-cigarettes at longest follow-up compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, but CIs included no difference (risk ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.41, n = 601). The levels of continued e-cigarette use observed may reflect the success of e-cigarettes as a quitting tool. Further research is needed to establish drivers of variation in and implications of continued use of e-cigarettes.

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.

Does a human rights-based approach to harm reduction support commercialized harm reduction? Brief research

In recent years, the tobacco industry has been pushing a narrative that their newer lines of products-including electronic nicotine delivery devices-are offered in part to meet a social responsibility of providing potentially reduced-harm choices to their consumers. While some of the newer tobacco products might potentially be less harmful than combustible tobacco products, there is also significant deviation from the very concept of harm reduction when it is used for such a conspicuously commercialized purpose. The framing of commercialized tobacco harm reduction as a mere consumer preference by the industry is not clearly consistent with the core principles of harm reduction, let alone the human right to health and the highest attainable level of health. A human rights-based approach (HRBA) to harm reduction is a set of principles that frame an effort to respect and promote human rights, including the right to health. Whether the HRBA supports commercialized harm reduction requires study. We review industry materials from 2017 to 2022 to identify themes in the harm reduction narrative of the tobacco industry and analyse those themes using an HRBA to the tobacco harm reduction framework. Using this analysis, the industry's continued marketing of combustible products alongside their "potentially less harmful" products, and preference that their non-combustible products be regulated less strictly than cigarettes and cigars, adulterates the public health principles of harm reduction and undermines the right to health. We conclude that the tobacco industry's commercialized tobacco harm reduction is incompatible with a human rights-based approach to tobacco harm reduction.

Associations Between E-cigarette Use and E-cigarette Flavors With Cigarette Smoking Quit Attempts and Quit Success: Evidence From a U.S. Large, Nationally Representative 2018-2019 Survey

INTRODUCTION

Although many studies have examined the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, fewer have considered the impact of e-cigarette flavors on cessation outcomes. This study extends previous studies by examining the effects of e-cigarette use and e-cigarette flavors on quit attempts and quit success of smoking.

AIMS AND METHODS

We used data from the 2018-2019 Tobacco Use Supplement-Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS) survey. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to investigate the associations between flavored e-cigarette use with quit attempts and quit success of smoking among individuals who smoked 12 months ago. Two current e-cigarette use definitions were used in these logistic regression analyses; currently use every day or some days versus 20+ days in the past 30 days.

RESULTS

Compared to those not using e-cigarettes, current every day or someday e-cigarette use with all nontobacco flavors had an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 2.9 (95% CI: 2.4 to 3.5) for quit attempts and 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3 to 2.2) for quit success. 20+ days e-cigarette use with flavors had stronger associations with quit attempts (AOR = 4.2, 95% CI: 3.1 to 5.5) and quit success (AOR = 4.0, 95% CI: 2.9 to 5.4). E-cigarette users with nontobacco flavors were more likely to succeed in quitting compared to those exclusively using non-flavored or tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes. Menthol or mint flavor users had slightly higher odds of quit attempts and success than users of other nontobacco flavors.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarette use is positively associated with both making smoking quit attempts and quit success. Those using flavored e-cigarettes, particularly menthol or mint, are more likely to quit successfully.

IMPLICATIONS

E-cigarette use is positively associated with both making a quit attempt and quit success, and those using flavored e-cigarettes are more likely to successfully quit smoking, with no statistically significant differences between the use of menthol or mint-flavored e-cigarettes versus the use of other nontobacco flavored products. This suggests that the potential for e-cigarettes to help people who currently smoke quit could be maintained with the availability of menthol or mint-flavored e-cigarettes, even if other nontobacco flavored products, which are associated with e-cigarette use among youth, were removed from the market.

Combined biological effects and lung proteomics analysis in mice reveal different toxic impacts of electronic cigarette aerosol and combustible cigarette smoke on the respiratory system

Combustible cigarettes produce many toxic substances that have been linked to diseases, such as lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. For those smokers unable or unwilling to quit, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) could be used as an alternative to cigarettes. However, the effects and mechanisms of e-cigarette aerosol (ECA) on respiratory function have not been fully elucidated, and in vivo studies of its safety are limited compared to cigarette smoke (CS). In this article, we chose nicotine levels as dosing references and C57BL/6 mice for a 10-week subchronic inhalation toxicity study. A comprehensive set of toxicological endpoints was used to study the effect of exposure. Both CS (6 mg/kg) and ECA (6 or 12 mg/kg) inhalation had decreased the animal’s lung function and increased levels of inflammation markers, along with pathological changes in the airways and lungs, with ECA displaying a relatively small effect at the same dose. Proteomic analysis of lung tissue showed greater overall protein changes by CS than that of ECA, with more severe inflammatory network perturbations. Compared with ECA, KEGG analysis of CS revealed upregulation of more inflammatory and virus-related pathways. Protein–protein interactions (PPI) showed that both ECA and CS significantly changed ribosome and complement system-related proteins in mouse lung tissue. The results support that e-cigarette aerosol is less harmful to the respiratory system than cigarette smoke at the same dose using this animal model, thus providing additional evidence for the relative safety of e-cigarettes.

Effect of vaping on past-year smoking cessation success of Australians in 2019-evidence from a national survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous analyses of the effect of e-cigarettes on real world smoking cessation success have mainly been based on surveys undertaken in the United States and United Kingdom, where nicotine e-cigarettes can be readily obtained. In Australia, regulations have made obtaining e-cigarettes containing nicotine difficult. The effectiveness of e-cigarette use as a smoking cessation aid in Australia might therefore be lower than survey-based estimates published to date. This study aimed to estimate the effect of using e-cigarettes for a smoking cessation attempt on past-year smoking cessation success in Australia.

DESIGN

Multivariable logistic regression models for past-year smoking cessation success.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Respondents to the 2019 wave of Australia's National Drug Strategy Household Survey who made a smoking cessation attempt in the 12 months leading up to the survey.

MEASUREMENTS

Past-year smoking cessation success was assumed if a smoking cessation attempt resulted in abstinence of more than a month at the time of the survey.

FINDINGS

In 2019, Australians who attempted to quit smoking using e-cigarettes achieved greater success than smokers attempting to quit without e-cigarettes [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.09-2.60]. If people who only tried e-cigarettes once or twice are considered not to have used e-cigarettes, the estimated effect was slightly stronger (aOR = 1.98; 95% CI = 1.27-3.10). Also, the estimated odds ratio was higher among vapers who acquired their e-cigarettes from overseas websites (aOR = 2.24; 95% CI = 1.02-4.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of e-cigarettes for a smoking cessation attempt appears to be associated with greater success among Australians who attempted to quit tobacco in 2019 compared with Australians attempting to quit without e-cigarettes, after adjusting for confounding effects.

Self-treatment attempt of tobacco use disorder with Melissa officinalis: a case report and brief review of literature

In the treatment of tobacco use disorder, current approaches focus on pharmacotherapy, nicotine replacement, and psychotherapy. However, traditional treatments have been widely used in societies for the purpose of smoking cessation for years. Although cases using traditional herbs in the self-treatment of addiction have been reported in the literature, studies on this subject are very limited. Research on certain herbs shows that they may be effective in the treatment of tobacco use disorder by different mechanisms, however, there is no evidence that they are safe to consume as cigarettes. This article aims to question the place of traditional herbs in tobacco use disorder treatment through a case who started to smoke Melissa officinalis herb to help his nicotine withdrawal.

Electronic cigarettes versus nicotine patches for smoking cessation in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial

Nicotine replacement therapy, in the form of nicotine patches, is commonly offered to pregnant women who smoke to help them to stop smoking, but this approach has limited efficacy in this population. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are also used by pregnant women who smoke but their safety and efficacy in pregnancy are unknown. Here, we report the results of a randomized controlled trial in 1,140 participants comparing refillable e-cigarettes with nicotine patches. Pregnant women who smoked were randomized to e-cigarettes (n = 569) or nicotine patches (n = 571). In the unadjusted analysis of the primary outcome, validated prolonged quit rates at the end of pregnancy in the two study arms were not significantly different (6.8% versus 4.4% in the e-cigarette and patch arms, respectively; relative risk (RR) = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.95-2.53, P = 0.08). However, some participants in the nicotine patch group also used e-cigarettes during the study. In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding abstinent participants who used non-allocated products, e-cigarettes were more effective than patches (6.8% versus 3.6%; RR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.14-3.26, P = 0.02). Safety outcomes included adverse events and maternal and birth outcomes. The safety profile was found to be similar for both study products, however, low birthweight (<2,500 g) was less frequent in the e-cigarette arm (14.8% versus 9.6%; RR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.47-0.90, P = 0.01). Other adverse events and birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms. E-cigarettes might help women who are pregnant to stop smoking, and their safety for use in pregnancy is similar to that of nicotine patches. ISRCTN62025374.

E-Cigarettes-a review of the evidence-harm versus harm reduction

The World Health Organization estimates there are 1.1 billion cigarette smokers across the globe and that tobacco related deaths number 7 million per year. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are available to contribute options for smoking cessation and include e-cigarettes, e-hookahs, vape pens, mods, and vaping. The growing use of ENDS, or e-cigarettes, in the US and globally across populations is dramatic. Although users may think that e-cigarettes are less harmful than combustible tobacco products, the evidence shows that there are known risks and harms for users. E-cigarettes have varying amounts of toxicants, nicotine, and carcinogens and put the user at risk for lung diseases and COVID-19 similar to smokers. Currently, most governing bodies have not approved e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool but do state if a person has failed conventional smoking cessation treatments that e-cigarettes used alone for the short term may help those to quit combustible tobacco and nicotine. A shared decision-making approach should be used when discussing e-cigarettes as a harm reduction tool. More studies and long-term data are needed to assess potential benefits and harms. What is known is that prevention efforts and policy are needed to avoid adolescents and other vulnerable populations from initiating tobacco or e-cigarette use.

Smoking cessation aids and strategies: a population-based survey of former and current smokers in Norway

BACKGROUND

In Norway, tobacco consumption is equally divided between combustible (cigarettes) and non-combustible (snus) tobacco. In the process of quitting, people who smoke can choose between several smoking cessation aids and strategies based on what is available on the market or what are recommended as cessation aids. A quit attempt may be planned or unplanned and consist of a gradual decline in consumption or an abrupt quitting. This study explores smoking cessation aids and strategies used at the latest quit attempt among people who have ever smoked. How prevalent is the use of various cessation aids and strategies, and do they correlate with each other? Are there any differences in successful quits depending on the use of a specific cessation aid or strategy?

METHOD

We used repeated cross-sectional representative surveys in Norway for 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. The analytic sample consists of people aged 20 years or older who have ever smoked daily, more precisely current daily smokers with at least one quit attempt (n = 476), and former daily smokers who quit in 2012 or later (n = 397). Participants answered questions on cessation aids and strategies used at their last quit attempt. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the associations between cessation aids and strategies and sociodemographic and smoking-related variables and successful quit attempts.

RESULTS

Fifty-six percent of people who ever smoked daily reported any use of cessation aids, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), snus and e-cigarettes were the most commonly used cessation aids. Snus and web/mobile use was associated with successful quits, while NRT was associated with unsuccessful quit attempts. When exclusive use was separated from the combined use of several aids, only snus was associated with successful quits.

CONCLUSION

Snus use was found to be a "stand-alone" cessation aid, and only weakly associated with the use of other cessation aids. Further investigation of cessation aid preferences is needed, especially among smokers with little or no contact with health services and/or for whom traditional cessation aids have no appeal.

E-cigarettes and nicotine abstinence: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objectives

To determine the effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a therapeutic intervention compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on nicotine abstinence.

Methods

Two authors independently searched the PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for articles published up to and including 10 July 2021. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which nicotine e-cigarettes were compared to NRT among current cigarette users. The primary outcome was abstaining from all nicotine-delivery devices. Secondary outcomes were 1) allocated product use (e-cigarettes or NRT) among successful cigarette quitters and 2) quitting cigarettes at the end of the trial using fixed-effect Mantel–Haenszel models.

Results

We included four RCTs representing 1598 adult participants (51.0% females). The mean age of participants in these studies ranged from 41 to 54 years, while average baseline smoking ranged from 14 to 21 cigarettes per day. Compared to NRT, e-cigarette use was associated with lower nicotine abstinence rates at the longest follow-up (risk ratio 0.50 (95% CI 0.32–0.77)). Among successful cigarette quitters, the risk of allocated product use by the end of the observational time was higher for e-cigarette users compared to NRT (risk ratio 8.94 (95% CI 3.98–20.07)). E-cigarette users had higher cigarette smoking cessation rates compared to NRT users (risk ratio 1.58 (95% CI 1.20–2.08)).

Conclusions

The use of e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention for smoking cessation may lead to permanent nicotine dependence.

Clinicians should not recommend e-cigarettes for smoking cessation due to the risk of permanent nicotine dependencehttps://bit.ly/358oToy

Efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, ENDS) in helping people who smoke to achieve abstinence compared with electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS, no nicotine) or any smoking cessation comparator treatment or combination of treatments at 24–26 weeks and at 52 weeks.

METHODS

Systematic review techniques involved searches of three databases in February 2020 with update searches run on 14 May 2021, two-person independent screening, two-person independent assessment of bias, formal extraction of data with verification by a second person, a feasibility assessment to decide if meta-analysis was appropriate, and network meta-analysis (NMA) of data at 24–26 weeks. Data at 52 weeks were narratively summarized.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs met the inclusion criteria, eight for efficacy and ten for safety. Eight of the nine RCTs were assessed as at high risk of bias. The sample sizes of the RCTs were 30–2012. Using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as the reference treatment, the incidences of smoking cessation at 24–26 weeks were comparable between ENDS and NRT groups (RR=1.17; 95% CrI: 0.66–1.86). Three sensitivity analyses were carried out indicating the main findings for 24–26 weeks were robust to assumptions. The findings at 52 weeks were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and NMA indicates that there is no clear evidence of a difference in effect between nicotine containing e-cigarettes and NRT on incidences of smoking cessation at 24–26 weeks, and substantial uncertainty remains.