Safety of e-cigarettes and nicotine patches as stop-smoking aids in pregnancy: Secondary analysis of the Pregnancy Trial of E-cigarettes and Patches (PREP) randomized controlled trial

AIMS

The aim of this study was to examine the safety of e-cigarettes (EC) and nicotine patches (NRT) when used to help pregnant smokers quit.

DESIGN

A recent trial of EC versus NRT reported safety outcomes in the randomized arms. We conducted a further analysis based on product use.

SETTING

Twenty-three hospitals in England and a stop-smoking service in Scotland took part.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants comprised 1140 pregnant smokers.

INTERVENTIONS

We compared women using and not using EC and NRT regularly during pregnancy.

MEASUREMENTS

Measurements included nicotine intake compared with baseline, birth weight, other pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal respiratory symptoms and relapse in early abstainers.

FINDINGS

Use of EC was more common than use of NRT (47.3% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001). Women who stopped smoking (abstainers) and used EC at the end-of-pregnancy (EOP) reduced their salivary cotinine by 45% [49.3 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -79.8 to -10]. Only one abstainer used NRT at EOP. In dual users, cotinine increased by 19% (24 ng/ml, 95% CI = 3.5-68). In women reporting a reduction of at least 50% in cigarette consumption, cotinine levels increased by 10% in those using nicotine products and by 9% in those who did not. Birth weights in dual users and exclusive smokers were the same (3.1 kg). Birth weight in abstainers using either nicotine product was higher than in smokers [3.3 kg, standard deviation (SD) = 0.7] versus 3.1 kg, SD = 0.6; difference = 0.15 kg, 95% CI = 0.05-0.25) and not different from abstainers not using nicotine products (3.1 kg, SD = 0.8). Abstainers and smokers using nicotine products had no worse pregnancy outcomes or more adverse events than abstainers and smokers not using them. EC users reported more improvements than non-users in cough [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37-0.93] and phlegm (aRR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.31-0.92), controlling for smoking status. EC or NRT use had no association with relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular use of e-cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes.

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.

E-cigarette support for smoking cessation: Identifying the effectiveness of intervention components in an on-line randomized optimization experiment

AIMS, DESIGN AND SETTING

The aim of this study was to determine which combination(s) of five e-cigarette-orientated intervention components, delivered on-line, affect smoking cessation. An on-line (UK) balanced five-factor (2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 32 intervention combinations) randomized factorial design guided by the multi-phase optimization strategy (MOST) was used.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1214 eligible participants (61% female; 97% white) were recruited via social media.

INTERVENTIONS

The five on-line intervention components designed to help smokers switch to exclusive e-cigarette use were: (1) tailored device selection advice; (2) tailored e-liquid nicotine strength advice; (3): tailored e-liquid flavour advice; (4) brief information on relative harms; and (5) text message (SMS) support.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 4-week self-reported complete abstinence at 12 weeks post-randomization. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (loss to follow-up recorded as smoking). Logistic regressions modelled the three- and two-way interactions and main effects, explored in that order.

FINDINGS

In the adjusted model the only significant interaction was a two-way interaction, advice on flavour combined with text message support, which increased the odds of abstinence (odds ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-2.14, P = 0.007, Bayes factor = 7.25). There were no main effects of the intervention components.

CONCLUSIONS

Text-message support with tailored advice on flavour is a promising intervention combination for smokers using an e-cigarette in a quit attempt.

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.

Study protocol of the Our Futures Vaping Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based eHealth intervention to prevent e-cigarette use among adolescents

BACKGROUND

Effective and scalable prevention approaches are urgently needed to address the rapidly increasing rates of e-cigarette use among adolescents. School-based eHealth interventions can be an efficient, effective, and economical approach, yet there are none targeting e-cigarettes within Australia. This paper describes the protocol of the OurFutures Vaping Trial which aims to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the first school-based eHealth intervention targeting e-cigarettes in Australia.

METHODS

A two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted among Year 7 and 8 students (aged 12-14 years) in 42 secondary schools across New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, Australia. Using stratified block randomisation, schools will be assigned to either the OurFutures Vaping Program intervention group or an active control group (health education as usual). The intervention consists of four web-based cartoon lessons and accompanying activities delivered during health education over a four-week period. Whilst primarily focused on e-cigarette use, the program simultaneously addresses tobacco cigarette use. Students will complete online self-report surveys at baseline, post-intervention, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-months after baseline. The primary outcome is the uptake of e-cigarette use at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the uptake of tobacco smoking, frequency/quantity of e-cigarettes use and tobacco smoking, intentions to use e-cigarettes/tobacco cigarettes, knowledge about e-cigarettes/tobacco cigarettes, motives and attitudes relating to e-cigarettes, self-efficacy to resist peer pressure and refuse e-cigarettes, mental health, quality of life, and resource utilisation. Generalized mixed effects regression will investigate whether receiving the intervention reduces the likelihood of primary and secondary outcomes. Cost-effectiveness and the effect on primary and secondary outcomes will also be examined over the longer-term.

DISCUSSION

If effective, the intervention will be readily accessible to schools via the OurFutures platform and has the potential to make substantial health and economic impact. Without such intervention, young Australians will be the first generation to use nicotine at higher rates than previous generations, thereby undoing decades of effective tobacco control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12623000022662; date registered: 10/01/2023).

Is opt-out enrolment acceptable for low-risk digital health services?

Introduction Digital health programmes not only complement existing services, but have the potential to reach populations that existing services are not reaching. Many of these services require people to opt-in to receive them, which presents significant barriers to access. An alternative is to make low-risk digital services opt-out, ensuring appropriate members of the target audience are signed up for a service unless they select to not receive it. Aim This study aimed to investigate how changing enrolment in a low-risk digital health programme from opt-in to opt-out would impact on enrolment and dropout rates. Methods This study involved the retrospective analysis of registration data from txtpēpi, a maternal and child health text-message programme. System-recorded data from enrolments during a 12-month period were obtained. In the first 6 months, users had to opt-in to the service (Period 1), but in the following 6 months, an opt-out process was implemented (Period 2). Results There was a 77% increase in enrolments in Period 2 (n  = 113) compared to Period 1 (n  = 64) and no significant change in the proportion of enrolments of Māori between time periods (P  = 0.508). There was no significant difference in withdrawal rates between time periods at either 2 weeks (5% vs 6%, P  = 0.676) or 1 month (9% vs 9%, P  = 0.907). Discussion This study has shown switching from an opt-in to an opt-out option resulted in an increase in enrolments in an mHealth programme, but had no impact on withdrawals. This indicates that employing opt-out enrolment for low-risk evidence-based interventions is acceptable and a potential way to make these services more accessible.

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.

Household composition and smoking behaviour in a prospective longitudinal Australian cohort

Introduction

This study estimates the extent to which individuals’ smoking cessation and relapse patterns are associated with the smoking behaviour of their household members.

Methods

Longitudinal data on household members’ smoking behaviour was sourced from a representative sample of 12,723 Australians who ever reported smoking between 2001 and 2019. Controlling for a rich set of confounders, multivariate regression analyses were used to predict the likelihood of smoking cessation and relapse given other household members’ smoking status and their relationship type. The models were then used to forecast smoking prevalence over ten years across different household types.

Results

Individuals living with a smoking spouse were less likely to quit [OR0.77 (95%CI 0.72;0.83)] and more likely to relapse [OR1.47 (95%CI 1.28;1.69)] compared to those living with non-smoking spouses. Subsequently, the proportion of smokers living with other smoking household members increased by 15% between 2011 and 2019. A ten-year forecast using the smoking cessation and relapse models predicts that, on average, smokers living with non-smokers will reduce by 43%, while those living alone or with a smoking partner will only reduce by 26% and 28% respectively.

Conclusions

Over time, those who are still smoking are more likely to live with other smokers. Therefore, the current cohort of smokers are increasingly less likely to quit and more likely to relapse. Smoking projection models that fail to account for this dynamic risk may overstate the downstream health benefits and health cost savings. Interventions which encourage smoking cessation at the household level, particularly for spouses, may assist individuals to quit and abstain from smoking.

Implications

The current and future paradigm shift in the smoking environment suggests that smoking cessation and relapse prevention policies should consider household structure. Policies designed to affect smoking at the household level are likely to be particularly effective. When estimating the long-term benefits of current smoking policies intrahousehold smoking behaviour needs to be considered.

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.

Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of vaporized nicotine products versus nicotine replacement therapy for tobacco smoking cessation in a low-socioeconomic status Australian population: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

In Australia, tobacco smoking rates have declined but inequalities remain with significantly higher smoking prevalence among low-socioeconomic populations. Clinical trial data suggest vaporized nicotine products (VNPs) aid smoking cessation. Most VNP trials have used refillable tank systems, but newer generation (pod) devices now comprise the largest market share yet have limited clinical trial evidence on safety and effectiveness. This study evaluates the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of VNPs (pod and tank device) compared with nicotine replacement therapy ([NRT]—gum or lozenge) for smoking cessation.

Methods

This is a two-arm, open-label, superiority, parallel group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment. The RCT is conducted at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Participants are people who smoke daily, are interested in quitting and receive a government pension or allowance (N = 1058). Participants will be randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive 8 weeks of free: VNPs, with pod (40 mg/mL nicotine salt) and tank device (18 mg/mL freebase nicotine) in mixed flavours; or NRT (gum or lozenge; 4 mg). All participants will receive daily text message behavioural support for 5 weeks. Assessments will be undertaken by telephone at baseline, with three follow-up calls (two check-in calls within the first month and final follow-up at 7 months post randomization) to ascertain smoking status, treatment adherence and adverse events. The primary outcome is 6-month continuous abstinence verified by carbon monoxide breath test of ≤5ppm at 7-month follow-up. Safety and cost-effectiveness of VNPs versus NRT will also be evaluated.

Discussion

Further data are required to strengthen certainty of evidence for VNPs aiding smoking cessation, particularly for newer generation pod devices. To our knowledge, this trial is the first to offer choice of VNPs and no comparative effectiveness trial data exists for new pod devices. If effective, the findings can inform wider implementation of VNPs to aid smoking cessation in a priority group.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000076875. Registered on 29 January 2021. https://www.anzctr.org.au

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06644-8.

Revised Guidelines for smoking cessation in New Zealand, 2021

AIMS

To summarise the literature underpinning key recommendations made in the 2021 revision of the Ministry of Health's New Zealand Guidelines for Helping People to Stop Smoking.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of smoking cessation interventions was undertaken in July 2021. Recommendations were formulated from the findings of the literature review and expert advice.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals should ask and briefly advise all people who smoke to stop smoking, regardless of whether they say they are ready to stop smoking or not. They should offer smoking cessation support, which includes both behavioural and pharmacological (e.g., nicotine replacement therapy, nortriptyline, bupropion or varenicline) interventions. The Guidelines also include advice around the use of vaping in smoking cessation. Recommendations are also formulated for priority populations of smokers: Māori, Pacific, pregnant women, and people with mental illness and other addictions.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines will assist healthcare professionals in providing evidence-based smoking cessation support to people who smoke. To be effective and equitable, the ABC model requires organisational commitment, integration into routine practice, and increased attention to the upstream determinants of smoking and quitting.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The majority of smokers accessing the current best treatments continue to smoke. We aimed to test if e-cigarettes (EC) compared with nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) can help such smokers to reduce smoking.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial of EC (n = 68) versus NRT (n = 67) with 6-month follow-up.

SETTING

Stop smoking service in London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 135 smokers (median age = 40 years, 51% male) previously unable to stop smoking with conventional treatments.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received either NRT of their choice (8-week supply) or an EC starter pack and instructions to purchase further e-liquids of strength and flavours of their choice themselves. Products were accompanied by minimal behavioural support.

MEASUREMENTS

Participants who reported that they stopped smoking or reduced their daily cigarette consumption by at least 50% at 6-month follow-up were invited to provide a carbon monoxide (CO) reading. The primary outcome was biochemically validated reduction in smoke intake of at least 50% at 6 months and the main secondary outcome was sustained validated abstinence at 6 months. Drop-outs were included as 'non-reducers'.

FINDINGS

Validated smoking reduction (including cessation) was achieved by 26.5 versus 6.0% of participants in the EC and NRT study arms, respectively [relative risk (RR) = 4.4, P = 0.005, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.6-12.4]. Sustained validated abstinence rates at 6 months were 19.1 versus 3.0% (RR = 6.4, P = 0.01, 95% CI = 1.5-27.3). Product use was high and equal in both study arms initially, but at 6 months allocated product use was 47% in the EC arm versus 10% in the NRT arm (χ2(1)  = 22.0, P < 0.001), respectively. Adverse events were minor and infrequent.

CONCLUSIONS

In smokers unable to quit using conventional methods, e-cigarettes were more effective than nicotine replacement therapy in facilitating validated long-term smoking reduction and smoking cessation when limited other support was provided.

Inequity in smoking cessation clinical trials testing pharmacotherapies: exclusion of smokers with mental health disorders

OBJECTIVES

People suffering from mental health disorder (MHDs) are often under-represented in clinical research though the reasons for their exclusion are rarely recorded. As they have higher rates of smoking and nicotine dependence, it is crucial that they are adequately represented in clinical trials of established pharmacotherapy interventions for smoking cessation. This review aims to examine the practice of excluding smokers with MHDs and reasons for such exclusion in clinical trials evaluating pharmacotherapy treatments for smoking cessation.

DATA SOURCE

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews was searched until September 2020 for reviews on smoking cessation using pharmacotherapies.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) within the selected Cochrane reviews were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Conducted by one author and independently verified by three authors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 279 RCTs from 13 Cochrane reviews. Of all studies, 51 (18.3%) explicitly excluded participants with any MHDs, 152 (54.5%) conditionally excluded based on certain MHD criteria and 76 (27.2%) provided insufficient information to ascertain either inclusion or exclusion. Studies of antidepressant medications used for smoking cessation were found to be 3.33 times more likely (95% CI 1.38 to 8.01, p=0.007) to conditionally exclude smokers with MHDs than explicitly exclude compared with studies of nicotine replacement therapy.

CONCLUSION

Smokers with MHDs are not sufficiently represented in RCTs examining the safety and effectiveness of smoking cessation medications. Greater access to clinical trial participation needs to be facilitated for this group to better address access to appropriate pharmacotherapeutic interventions in this vulnerable population.

Smoking and vaping patterns during pregnancy and the postpartum: A longitudinal UK cohort survey

INTRODUCTION

There is limited information about longitudinal patterns of vaping during pregnancy and the postpartum. We describe the prevalence, frequency, and reasons for vaping throughout pregnancy and postpartum. We also describe temporal patterns in pregnant women's vaping.

METHODS

A longitudinal cohort study across England and Scotland, with questionnaires in early pregnancy (8-24 weeks gestation), late pregnancy (34-38 weeks) and 3 months postpartum. A total of 750 women, aged 16 years or over, who were either current smokers, vapers or had smoked in the 3 months before pregnancy, were recruited between June and November 2017.

RESULTS

Vaping prevalence was 15.9% (n = 119/750) in early pregnancy: 12.4% (n = 93/750) were dual users and 3.5% (n = 26/750) exclusive vapers. Late pregnancy vaping prevalence was 17.8% (n = 68/383): 12.5% (n = 48/383) were dual users and 5.2% (n = 20/383) exclusive vapers. Postpartum vaping prevalence was 23.1% (n = 95/411): 14.6% (n = 60/411) were dual users and 8.5% (n = 35/411) exclusive vapers. The most frequently reported reason to vape among all vapers was to quit smoking. A total of 316 women completed all three surveys: 2.6% (n = 8/316) were exclusive vapers in early pregnancy with most remaining exclusive vapers postpartum (n = 6/8, 75%). Of the 11.5% (n = 35/316) dual users in early pregnancy, 31.4% (n = 11/35) were exclusive smokers by the postpartum.

CONCLUSION

Vaping prevalence was between 15.9% and 23.1% during pregnancy and the postpartum period, and the majority were dual users. Vaping habits of exclusive vapers remains stable throughout pregnancy and the postpartum. However, the vaping habits of dual users varies, with a third exclusively smoking in the postpartum.

A randomised controlled trial of the 5:2 diet

Objective

The 5:2 diet is a popular intermittent energy restriction method of weight management that awaits further evaluation. We compared the effects of one-off 5:2 instructions with the effects of one-off standard multicomponent weight-management advice; and also examined whether additional behavioural support enhances 5:2 adherence and efficacy compared to one-off instructions.

Methods

Three hundred adults with obesity were randomised to receive a Standard Brief Advice (SBA) covering diet and physical activity (N = 100); 5:2 self-help instructions (5:2SH) (N = 100); or 5:2SH plus six once-weekly group support sessions (N = 100). Participants were followed up for one year.

Results

Adherence to 5:2SH was initially high (74% at 6 weeks), but it declined over time (31% at 6 months and 22% at one year). 5:2SH and SBA achieved similar weight-loss at six months (-1.8kg (SD = 3.5) vs -1.7kg (SD = 4.4); b = 0.23, 95%CI:-0.79–1.27, p = 0.7) and at one year (-1.9kg (SD = 4.9) vs -1.8kg (SD = 5.7), b = 0.20, 95%CI:-1.21–1.60, p = 0.79), with 18% vs 15% participants losing ≥5% of their body weight with 5:2SH and SBA, respectively at one year (RR = 0.83, 95%CI:0.44–1.54, p = 0.55). Both interventions received positive ratings, but 5:2SH ratings were significantly higher. 5:2SH had no negative effect on fat and fiber intake and physical activity compared to SBA. Compared to 5:2SH, 5:2G generated a greater weight loss at 6 weeks (-2.3kg vs -1.5kg; b = 0.74, 95%CI:1.37–0.11, p = 0.02), but by one year, the difference was no longer significant (-2.6kg vs -1.9kg, p = 0.37; ≥5% body weight loss 28% vs 18%, p = 0.10).

Conclusions

Simple 5:2 advice and multicomponent weight management advice generated similar modest results. The 5:2 diet did not undermine other health behaviours, and it received more favourable ratings. Adding initial group support enhanced 5:2 adherence and effects, but the impact diminished over time. Health professionals who provide brief weight management advice may consider including the 5:2 advice as an option.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79408248).

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.

Outcomes of a culturally informed weight-loss competition for New Zealand Indigenous and Pacific peoples: a quasi-experimental trial

Background

Reducing obesity prevalence among marginalised subgroups with disproportionately high obesity rates is challenging. Given the promise of incentives and group-based programmes we trialled a culturally tailored, team-based weight-loss competition with New Zealand Māori (Indigenous) and Pacific Island people.

Methods

A quasi-experimental 12-months trial was designed. The intervention consisted of three six-months competitions, each with seven teams of seven members. Eligible participants were aged 16 years and older, with a BMI ≥30 kg/m² and being at risk of or already diagnosed with type-2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Height, weight and waist circumference were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months.

Results

Recruitment of a control group (n = 29) versus the intervention (n = 132) was poor and retention rates were low (52 and 27% of intervention participants were followed-up at six and 12 months, respectively). Thus, analysis of the primary outcome of individual percentage weight loss was restricted to the 6-months follow-up data. Although not significant, the intervention group appeared to lose more weight than the control group, in both the intention to treat and complete-case analyses.

Conclusions

The intervention promoted some behaviour change in eating behaviours, and a resulting trend toward a reduction in waist circumference.

Trial registration

ACTRN12617000871347 Registered 15/6/2017 Retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40795-021-00457-9.

Tobacco use disorder and the lungs

This narrative review provides a summary of the impact of tobacco smoking on the respiratory system and the benefits of smoking cessation. Tobacco smoking is one of the leading preventable causes of death world-wide and a major risk factor for lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Smoking is also associated with an increased risk of respiratory infections and appears to be related to poorer outcomes among those with COVID-19. Non-smokers with second-hand smoke exposure also experience significant adverse respiratory effects. Smoking imposes enormous health- and non-health-related costs to societies. The benefits of smoking cessation, in both prevention and management of respiratory disease, have been known for decades and, to this day, cessation support remains one of the most important cost-effective interventions that health professionals can provide to people who smoke. Cessation at any age confers substantial health benefits, even in smokers with established morbidities. As other treatments for chronic respiratory disease advance and survival rates increase, smoking cessation treatment will become even more relevant. While smoking cessation interventions are available, the offer of these by clinicians and uptake by patients remain limited.

Training general practitioners in the ABC versus 5As method of delivering stop-smoking advice: a pragmatic, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial

This study assessed the effectiveness of a 3.5-h training session for general practitioners (GPs) in providing brief stop-smoking advice and compared two methods of giving advice - ABC versus 5As - on the rates of delivery of such advice and of recommendations of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment during routine consultations. A pragmatic, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial was carried out including a pre-/post-design for the analyses of the primary outcome in 52 GP practices in Germany. Practices were randomised (1:1) to receive a 3.5-h training session (ABC or 5As). In total, 1937 tobacco-smoking patients, who consulted trained GPs in these practices in the 6 weeks prior to or following the training, were included. The primary outcome was patient-reported rates of GP-delivered stop-smoking advice prior to and following the training, irrespective of the training method. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported receipt of recommendation/prescription of behavioural therapy, pharmacotherapy or combination therapy for smoking cessation, and the effectiveness of ABC versus 5As regarding all outcomes. GP-delivered stop-smoking advice increased from 13.1% (n=136 out of 1039) to 33.1% (n=297 out of 898) following the training (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.25, 95% CI 2.34-4.51). Recommendation/prescription rates of evidence-based treatments were low (<2%) pre-training, but had all increased after training (e.g. behavioural support: aOR 7.15, 95% CI 4.02-12.74). Delivery of stop-smoking advice increased non-significantly (p=0.08) stronger in the ABC versus 5As group (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 0.94-3.12). A single training session in stop-smoking advice was associated with a three-fold increase in rates of advice giving and a seven-fold increase in offer of support. The ABC method may lead to higher rates of GP-delivered advice during routine consultations.

Effect of Cytisine vs Varenicline on Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Cytisine is more effective than placebo and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. However, cytisine has not been tested against the most effective smoking cessation medication, varenicline, which is associated with adverse events known to lead to discontinuation of therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether standard cytisine treatment (25 days) was at least as effective as standard varenicline treatment (84 days) for smoking cessation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This noninferiority, open-label randomized clinical trial with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment was undertaken in Australia from November 2017 through May 2019; follow-up was completed in January 2020. A total of 1452 Australian adult daily smokers willing to make a quit attempt were included. Data collection was conducted primarily by computer-assisted telephone interview, but there was an in-person visit to validate the primary outcome.

INTERVENTIONS

Treatments were provided in accordance with the manufacturers' recommended dosage: cytisine (n = 725), 1.5-mg capsules taken 6 times daily initially then gradually reduced over the 25-day course; varenicline (n = 727), 0.5-mg tablets titrated to 1 mg twice daily for 84 days (12 weeks). All participants were offered referral to standard telephone behavioral support.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was 6-month continuous abstinence verified using a carbon monoxide breath test at 7-month follow-up. The noninferiority margin was set at 5% and the 1-sided significance threshold was set at .025.

RESULTS

Among 1452 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 42.9 [12.7] years; 742 [51.1%] women), 1108 (76.3%) completed the trial. Verified 6-month continuous abstinence rates were 11.7% for the cytisine group and 13.3% for the varenicline group (risk difference, -1.62% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -5.02% to ∞]; P = .03 for noninferiority). Self-reported adverse events occurred less frequently in the cytisine group (997 events among 482 participants) compared with the varenicline group (1206 events among 510 participants) and the incident rate ratio was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among daily smokers willing to quit, cytisine treatment for 25 days, compared with varenicline treatment for 84 days, failed to demonstrate noninferiority regarding smoking cessation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001654448.

The Time Course of Compensatory Puffing With an Electronic Cigarette: Secondary Analysis of Real-World Puffing Data With High and Low Nicotine Concentration Under Fixed and Adjustable Power Settings

INTRODUCTION

In a secondary analysis of our published data demonstrating compensatory vaping behavior (increased puff number, puff duration, and device power) with e-cigarettes refilled with low versus high nicotine concentration e-liquid, here we examine 5-day time course over which compensatory behavior occurs under fixed and adjustable power settings.

AIMS AND METHODS

Nineteen experienced vapers (37.90 ± 10.66 years, eight females) vaped ad libitum for 5 consecutive days under four counterbalanced conditions (ie, 20 days in total): (1) low nicotine (6 mg/mL)/fixed power (4.0 V/10 W); (2) low nicotine/adjustable power; (3) high nicotine (18 mg/mL)/fixed power; (4) high nicotine/adjustable power (at 1.6 Ohm). Puff number, puff duration, and power settings were recorded by the device. For each day, total daily puffing time was calculated by multiplying daily puff number by mean daily puff duration.

RESULTS

A significant day × setting interaction revealed that whilst puffing compensation (daily puffing time) continued to increase over 5 days under fixed power, it remained stable when power settings were adjustable. Separate analysis for puff number and puff duration suggested that the puffing compensatory behavior was largely maintained via longer puff duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Under fixed power conditions (4.0 V/10 W), vapers appear to compensate for poor nicotine delivery by taking longer puffs and this compensatory puffing appears to be maintained over time.

IMPLICATIONS

Studies in smokers suggest that when switching to lower nicotine levels, compensation for poorer nicotine delivery is transient. Our novel findings suggest that vapers show a different pattern of compensation which is influenced by both nicotine strength and device power settings. When power is fixed (4.0 V; 10 W), compensation (via more intensive puffing) appears prolonged, persisting up to 5 days. Under adjustable settings when power is increased, puffing patterns remain stable over time. Implications of such compensatory behaviors for product safety and user satisfaction need further exploration.

Effectiveness of Varenicline Versus Combination Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation: One-Year Outcomes in a Smoking Cessation Clinic in Taiwan

INTRODUCTION

Varenicline and combination nicotine replacement treatment (cNRT) have been recommended as the most effective pharmacotherapies, with equal abstinence rate for smoking cessation in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials, but data from real-world long-term follow-up studies are rare. This study aimed to compare the 12-month sustained abstinence rates of smokers using varenicline versus cNRT in their quit attempt.

METHODS

A total of 3569 smokers were recruited via the Department of Family Medicine outpatient department at Kaohsiung Veteran General Hospital between June 2013 and March 2019. Participants received counseling from a physician and chose either varenicline (N = 2870) or cNRT (N = 699) for smoking cessation. Both varenicline and cNRT users could receive a free 8-week supply and eight clinic visits over 90 days. Participants were followed-up by telephone at 12, 24, and 52 weeks from first visit. The primary outcome measure of the study was self-reported sustained abstinence up to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Varenicline users had a significantly higher sustained abstinence rate at weeks 12-52, adjusted for baseline variables (15.2% vs 10.3%, p = .001; adjusted odds ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-2.05). Other significant predictors of 52 weeks sustained abstinence were being male, having a higher income, attending more clinical visits, and have lower nicotine dependence.

CONCLUSION

Varenicline appears to have higher sustained abstinence rates to 52 weeks compared with cNRT, in a smoking cessation clinic where smokers can choose their medication option.

IMPLICATIONS

Network meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that varenicline and cNRT are similarly effective for smoking cessation. This study shows that 1-year sustained abstinence rates were significantly higher among smokers using varenicline, compared with smokers using cNRT, when used as part of a structured smoking cessation program. These findings are highly relevant to policy makers and service providers to help determine provision of smoking cessation treatment.

Pregnant women's use of e-cigarettes in the UK: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

To estimate prevalence of vaping in pregnancy. Compare characteristics and attitudes between exclusive smokers and vapers, and between exclusive vapers and dual users (smoke and vape).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Hospitals across England and Scotland.

POPULATION

Pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in 2017.

METHODS

Women at 8-24 weeks' gestation completed screening questions about their smoking and vaping. Current or recent ex-smokers and/or vapers completed a full detailed survey about vaping and smoking.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The prevalence of vaping, characteristics and attitudes of women who vape and/or smoke.

RESULTS

Of 3360 pregnant women who completed screening questions, 515 (15.3%, 95% CI 14.1-16.6) were exclusive smokers, 44 (1.3%, 95% CI 1.0-1.8) exclusive vapers and 118 (3.5%, 95% CI 2.9-4.2) dual users. In total, 867 (25.8%) women completed the full survey; compared with smokers (n = 434), vapers (n = 140) were more likely to hold higher educational qualifications (odds ratio [OR) 1.51, 95% CI 1.01-2.25). Compared with exclusive vapers (n = 33), dual users (n = 107) were younger (OR 0.91 95% CI 0.85-0.98) and less likely to hold high qualifications (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.96). Compared with smokers, dual users were more likely to be planning to quit smoking (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.24-4.18). Compared with smokers, vapers were more likely to think vaping was safer than smoking (78.6% versus 36.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 20 pregnant women report vaping, and most also smoke. Dual users are more motivated towards stopping smoking than smokers. Where women have tried but cannot stop smoking, clinicians could encourage them to consider vaping for smoking cessation.

TWEETABLE EXTRACT

One in 20 women report vaping during pregnancy but of those that do vape, most also smoke, despite having intentions to quit.

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.

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 narrative review of the implications for the pediatric anesthesiologist

The use of electronic cigarettes (EC) is increasing and the number of EC publications is rapidly growing. While some health organizations focus on the harmful effects of using EC (vaping), others promote the benefits of ECs as a less harmful alternative to smoking tobacco. There is concern that vaping might have adverse respiratory consequences for pediatric patients facing anesthesia and intensive care. This narrative review summarizes current knowledge and recommendations regarding the risks of EC relevant to the anesthesiologist and the use of ECs as a step-down option from tobacco. We provide guidance on the management of vaping patients in the perioperative period.

Daily exposure to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde and potential health risk associated with use of high and low nicotine e-liquid concentrations

Recent evidence suggests that e-cigarette users tend to change their puffing behaviors when using e-liquids with reduced nicotine concentrations by taking longer and more frequent puffs. Using puffing regimens modelled on puffing topography data from 19 experienced e-cigarette users who switched between 18 and 6 mg/mL e-liquids with and without power adjustments, differences in daily exposure to carbonyl compounds and estimated changes in cancer risk were assessed by production of aerosols generated using a smoking machine and analyzed using gas and liquid chromatography. Significant differences across conditions were found for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde (p < 0.01). Switching from a higher to a lower nicotine concentration was associated with greater exposure regardless of whether power settings were fixed or adjustable which is likely due to increased liquid consumption under lower nicotine concentration settings. Daily exposure for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde was higher for 17/19 participants when using low (6 mg/mL) compared with high (18 mg/mL) nicotine e-liquid concentration when power was fixed. When power adjustments were permitted, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde levels were higher respectively for 16/19 and 14/19 participants with the use of 6 compared with 18 mg/mL nicotine e-liquid.

Cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy in stop smoking services in England (TEC study): a randomized controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid used in routine stop smoking services in England.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective for 12-month periods and life-time. Costs, including that of both treatments, other smoking cessation help and health-care services, and health benefits, estimated from EQ-5D-5L and measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), for the 12-month analysis, came from a randomized controlled trial. Life-time analysis was model-based with input from both trial data and published secondary data sources. Cost-effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

SETTING

Three stop-smoking service sites in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult smokers (n = 886) who sought help to quit in the participating sites.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

An e-cigarette (EC) starter kit versus provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months, both with standard behavioural support. A total of 886 participants were randomized (439 in the EC arm, 447 in the NRT arm). Excluding one death in each arm, the 1-year quit rate was 18.0 and 9.9%, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS

Cost of treatments was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of other smoking cessation help and health-care services and EQ-5D-5 L were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Incremental costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regression adjusting for baseline covariates and their respective baseline values.

FINDINGS

The ICER was £1100 per QALY gained at the 12 months after quit date (87% probability below £20 000/QALY). Markov model estimated the life-time ICER of EC to be £65 per QALY (85% probability below £20 000/QALY).

CONCLUSION

Using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid with standard behavioural support in stop-smoking services in England is likely to be more cost-effective than using nicotine replacement therapy in the same setting.

Mobile phone text messaging and app-based interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Mobile phone-based smoking cessation support (mCessation) offers the opportunity to provide behavioural support to those who cannot or do not want face-to-face support. In addition, mCessation can be automated and therefore provided affordably even in resource-poor settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation rates in people who smoke.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the most recent searches was 29 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Participants were smokers of any age. Eligible interventions were those testing any type of predominantly mobile phone-based programme (such as text messages (or smartphone app) for smoking cessation. We included randomised controlled trials with smoking cessation outcomes reported at at least six-month follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed both study eligibility checks and data extraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analyses of the most stringent measures of abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method, pooling studies with similar interventions and similar comparators to calculate risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted analyses including all randomised (with dropouts counted as still smoking) and complete cases only.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 26 studies (33,849 participants). Overall, we judged 13 studies to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. Settings and recruitment procedures varied across studies, but most studies were conducted in high-income countries. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that automated text messaging interventions were more effective than minimal smoking cessation support (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.00; I² = 71%; 13 studies, 14,133 participants). There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that text messaging added to other smoking cessation interventions was more effective than the other smoking cessation interventions alone (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; I² = 0%, 4 studies, 997 participants). Two studies comparing text messaging with other smoking cessation interventions, and three studies comparing high- and low-intensity messaging, did not show significant differences between groups (RR 0.92 95% CI 0.61 to 1.40; I² = 27%; 2 studies, 2238 participants; and RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; I² = 0%, 3 studies, 12,985 participants, respectively) but confidence intervals were wide in the former comparison. Five studies compared a smoking cessation smartphone app with lower-intensity smoking cessation support (either a lower-intensity app or non-app minimal support). We pooled the evidence and deemed it to be of very low certainty due to inconsistency and serious imprecision. It provided no evidence that smartphone apps improved the likelihood of smoking cessation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; I² = 59%; 5 studies, 3079 participants). Other smartphone apps tested differed from the apps included in the analysis, as two used contingency management and one combined text messaging with an app, and so we did not pool them. Using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised did not substantially alter the findings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that automated text message-based smoking cessation interventions result in greater quit rates than minimal smoking cessation support. There is moderate-certainty evidence of the benefit of text messaging interventions in addition to other smoking cessation support in comparison with that smoking cessation support alone. The evidence comparing smartphone apps with less intensive support was of very low certainty, and more randomised controlled trials are needed to test these interventions.

Effectiveness of training general practitioners to improve the implementation of brief stop-smoking advice in German primary care: study protocol of a pragmatic, 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (the ABCII trial)

Background

The German clinical guideline on tobacco addiction recommends that general practitioners (GPs) provide brief stop-smoking advice to their patients according to the “5A” or the much briefer “ABC” method, but its implementation is insufficient. A lack of training is one barrier for GPs to provide such advice. Moreover, the respective effectiveness of a 5A or ABC training regarding subsequent delivery of stop-smoking advice has not been investigated. We developed a training for GPs according to both methods, and conducted a pilot study with process evaluation to optimize the trainings according to the needs of GPs. This study aims at evaluating the effectiveness of both trainings.

Methods

A pragmatic 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with a pre-post data collection will be conducted in 48 GP practices in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). GPs will be randomised to receive a 3.5-h-training in delivering either 5A or ABC, including peer coaching and intensive role plays with professional actors. The patient-reported primary outcome (receipt of GP advice to quit: yes/no) and secondary outcomes (recommendation rates of smoking cessation treatments, group comparison (5A versus ABC): receipt of GP advice to quit) will be collected in smoking patients routinely consulting their GP within 4 weeks prior, and 4 weeks following the training. Additional secondary outcomes will be collected at 4, 12 and 26 weeks following the consultation: use of cessation treatments during the last quit attempt (if so) since the GP consultation, and point-prevalence abstinence rates. The primary data analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with random effects for the cluster variable.

Discussion

If the training increases the rates of delivery of stop-smoking advice, it would offer a low-threshold strategy for the guideline implementation in German primary care. Should one method prove superior, a more specific guideline recommendation can be proposed.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00012786); registered on 22th August 2017, prior to the first patient in.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-0986-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hypnotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Hypnotherapy is widely promoted as a method for aiding smoking cessation. It is intended to act on underlying impulses to weaken the desire to smoke, or strengthen the will to stop.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect and safety of hypnotherapy for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), using the terms "smoking cessation" and "hypnotherapy" or "hypnosis", with no restrictions on language or publication date. The most recent search was performed on 18 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials that recruited people who smoked and implemented a hypnotherapy intervention for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, or with any other therapeutic interventions. Trials were required to report smoking cessation rates at least six months after the beginning of treatment. Study eligibility was determined by at least two review authors, independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data on participant characteristics, the type and duration of hypnotherapy, the nature of the control group, smoking status, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. These authors also independently assessed the quality of the included studies. In undertaking this work, we used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated abstinence rates where available. Those lost to follow-up were considered to still be smoking. We summarized effects as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. We also noted any adverse events reported.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new trials in this update, which brings the total to 14 included studies that compared hypnotherapy with 22 different control interventions. The studies included a total of 1926 participants. Studies were diverse and a single meta-analysis was not possible. We judged only one study to be at low risk of bias overall; we judged 10 studies to be at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk. Studies did not provide reliable evidence of a greater benefit from hypnotherapy compared with other interventions or no treatment for smoking cessation. Most individual studies did not find statistically significant differences in quit rates after six months or longer, and studies that did detect differences typically had methodological limitations.Pooling small groups of relatively comparable studies did not provide reliable evidence for a specific effect of hypnotherapy relative to controls. There was low certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, that showed no statistically significant difference between hypnotherapy and attention-matched behavioural treatments (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.61; I² = 36%; 6 studies, 957 participants). Results were similarly imprecise, and also limited by risk of bias, when comparing hypnotherapy to intensive behavioural interventions (not matched for contact time) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.82; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 211 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results from one small study (40 participants) detected a statistically significant benefit of hypnotherapy compared to no intervention (RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.18 to 305.88), but this evidence was judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision. No significant differences were detected in comparisons of hypnotherapy with brief behavioural interventions (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.69; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 269 participants), rapid/focused smoking (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.33; I² = 65%; 2 studies, 54 participants), and pharmacotherapies (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.20; I² = 5%; 2 studies, 197 participants). When hypnotherapy was evaluated as an adjunct to other treatments, the pooled result from five studies showed a statistically significant benefit in favour of hypnotherapy (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.35; I² = 62%; 224 participants); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to the high risk of bias across studies (four had a high risk or bias, one had an unclear risk), and substantial statistical heterogeneity.Most studies did not provide information on whether data specifically relating to adverse events were collected, and whether or not any adverse events occurred. One study that did collect such data did not find a statistically significant difference in the adverse event 'index' between hypnotherapy and relaxation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether hypnotherapy is more effective for smoking cessation than other forms of behavioural support or unassisted quitting. If a benefit is present, current evidence suggests the benefit is small at most. There is very little evidence on whether hypnotherapy causes adverse effects, but the existing data show no evidence that it does. Further large, high-quality randomized controlled trials, and more comprehensive assessments of safety, are needed on this topic.

The effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of cytisine versus varenicline for smoking cessation in an Australian population: a study protocol for a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Smoking cessation medications are effective, but often underutilized because of costs and side effects. Cytisine is a plant-based smoking cessation medication with more than 50 years of use in central and eastern Europe. While cytisine has been found to be well-tolerated and more effective than nicotine replacement therapy, direct comparisons with varenicline have not been conducted. This study evaluates the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of cytisine compared with varenicline.

DESIGN

Two-arm, parallel group, randomized, non-inferiority trial, with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment.

SETTING

Australian population-based study.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult daily smokers (n = 1266) interested in quitting will be recruited through advertisements and Quitline telephone-based cessation support services.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Eligible participants will be randomized (1 : 1 ratio) to receive either cytisine capsules (25-day supply) or varenicline tablets (12-week supply), prescribed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended dosing regimen. The medication will be mailed to each participant's nominated residential address. All participants will also be offered standard Quitline behavioural support (up to six 10-12-minute sessions).

MEASUREMENTS

Assessments will be undertaken by telephone at baseline, 4 and 7 months post-randomization. Participants will also be contacted twice (2 and 4 weeks post-randomization) to ascertain adverse events, treatment adherence and smoking status. The primary outcome will be self-reported 6-month continuous abstinence from smoking, verified by carbon monoxide at 7-month follow-up. We will also evaluate the relative safety and cost-effectiveness of cytisine compared with varenicline. Secondary outcomes will include self-reported continuous and 7-day point prevalence abstinence and cigarette consumption at each follow-up interview.

COMMENTS

If cytisine is as effective as varenicline, its lower cost and natural plant-based composition may make it an acceptable and affordable smoking cessation medication that could save millions of lives world-wide.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a task-based weight management group programme

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a rising global threat to health and a major contributor to health inequalities. Weight management programmes that are effective, economical and reach underprivileged groups are needed. We examined whether a multi-modal group intervention structured to cater for clients from disadvantaged communities (Weight Action Programme; WAP) has better one-year outcomes than a primary care standard weight management intervention delivered by practice nurses (PNI).

METHODS

In this randomised controlled trial, 330 obese adults were recruited from general practices in London and allocated (2:1) to WAP (N = 221) delivered over eight weekly group sessions or PNI (N = 109) who received four sessions over eight weeks. Both interventions covered diet, physical activity and self-monitoring. The primary outcome was the change in weight from baseline at 12 months. To indicate value to the NHS, a cost effectiveness analysis estimated group differences in cost and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) related to WAP.

RESULTS

Participants were recruited from September 2012 to January 2014 with follow-up completed in February 2015. Most participants were not in paid employment and 60% were from ethnic minorities. 88% of participants in each study arm provided at least one recorded outcome and were included in the primary analysis. Compared with the PNI, WAP was associated with greater weight loss overall (- 4·2 kg vs. - 2·3 kg; difference = - 1·9 kg, 95% CI: -3·7 to - 0·1; P = 0·04) and was more likely to generate a weight loss of at least 5% at 12 months (41% vs. 27%, OR = 14·61 95% CI: 2·32 to 91·96, P = 0·004). With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £7742/QALY, WAP would be considered highly cost effective compared to PNI.

CONCLUSIONS

The task-based programme evaluated in this study can provide a template for an effective and economical approach to weight management that can reach clients from disadvantaged communities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN45820471 . Registered 12/10/2012 (retrospectively registered).

Nicotine absorption from e-cigarettes over 12 months

BACKGROUND

Research indicates that, over time, exclusive e-cigarette users (vapers) gradually reduce the nicotine concentration in their e-liquid and transition to more sophisticated devices. Alongside this, consumption of e-liquid increases and constant cotinine levels are maintained.

AIMS

We aimed to confirm these observations in 27 experienced vapers tested at baseline and 12 months later, by measuring nicotine absorption (via salivary levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine; ng/mL), nicotine concentrations in e-liquid (mg/mL), volume of e-liquid consumed (mL per day), device types and flavours used, both at baseline and 12 months.

RESULTS

Vapers reduced both their nicotine concentrations in e-liquid over 12 months (from 13.83 mg/mL at baseline to 9.91 at follow up) but significantly increased their e-liquid consumption (from 4.44 to 6.84 mL). No significant changes in salivary cotinine concentrations (370.88 ng/mL at baseline and 415.78 ng/mL at follow up) were observed. There was an increase in sub-ohming (using an atomiser coil with resistance of <1 Ω with increased power) at 12 months, and in the use of fruit flavoured e-liquids.

CONCLUSIONS

Our sample of experienced vapers reduced the concentration of nicotine in their e-liquid over time, but maintained their nicotine intake possibly through self-titration via more intensive puffing. Findings suggest there may be little benefit in reducing nicotine e-liquid concentration since this appears to result in higher e-liquid consumption which may incur both a financial and health cost. Gaining an understanding of underlying reasons for lowering e-liquid concentration would be a useful line of empirical enquiry.

Adherence to daily dietary and activity goals set within a Māori and Pacific weight loss competition

BACKGROUND

New Zealand Pacific and Māori populations measure disproportionately high on the international body mass index (BMI). Information is needed on what behavioural weight loss goals to recommend and how to attract and retain them in interventions. Our team weight loss competition trial for participants with a BMI ≥30 used cash prizes to incentivise completion of nine daily behaviour goals. This paper evaluates the theoretical merit of and adherence to these goals.

METHODS

A qualitative component evaluation methodology was used. Trial data on team activity, demographics and anthropometric outcome data were extracted to determine frequency of daily goal completion by teams throughout the competition and to describe participant characteristics. T-tests were used to compare completion rates of the challenges, challenge completion by day of week and between weekdays and weekends. To examine adherence to the daily challenge activity over 24 weeks the total amount of completed challenges adjusted for number of active teams was plotted by week. A Body Shape Index (ABSI) was used to determine individual anthropometric change from baseline to 8, 16 and 24 weeks. Program documents were analysed to identify barriers to adherence and retention of participants.

RESULTS

Of 19 teams (N = 130) who began only five teams performed daily goals across the whole 24 weeks. Adherence was highest during the first 8 weeks. No difference in performance between goals was found suggesting they were equally viable, though tasks worth less points were performed more frequently. Goal completion was higher on weekdays. The behaviour goals appeared to have theoretical merit in that more members of high performing teams experienced a positive change in their ABSI.

CONCLUSIONS

Incentives offer a promising strategy for encouraging retention in weight loss interventions. This study suggests that participants in a competition will perform incentivised tasks. The findings however, are limited by missing data and high drop out of individuals and whole teams. Further research is needed on how to increase retention.

Progressive nicotine patch dosing prior to quitting smoking: feasibility, safety and effects during the pre-quit and post-quit periods

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may be more effective in aiding smoking cessation if higher doses of nicotine from it can be tolerated. We examined the responses to, and 4-week abstinence rates observed, when titrating the dose of transdermal nicotine patch up to 84 mg/day over 4 weeks prior to a target quit date and titrating down again over 4 weeks afterwards.

DESIGN

Clinical cohort study.

SETTING

Tobacco dependence clinic, Mar del Plata, Argentina.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty smokers seeking help with stopping smoking.

INTERVENTION

Participants started on one 21-mg/24-hour patch 4 weeks prior to their target quit day (TQD). The dose was increased weekly by adding a 21-mg patch unless participants reported adverse effects and/or did not wish to increase the dose. The dose was reduced by 21 mg/day each week from 1 week post-TQD, until it reverted to the standard dose (21 mg/day) at 4 weeks post-TQD. Participants received weekly behavioural support and could also use oral NRT from the TQD. Participants were advised to smoke ad libitum during the pre-quit period.

MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of participants progressing through each stage of dosing, adherence, adverse effects, changes in cigarette consumption, smoke intake and enjoyment of smoking during the pre-quit period; withdrawal symptoms; carbon monoxide-validated abstinence during 4 weeks post-TQD.

FINDINGS

Of the 50 participants, 72.0% (n = 36) progressed to the 84-mg nicotine dose and 94.0% (n = 47) completed the trial. Adverse effects consisted primarily of nausea and were mild and well tolerated. Cigarette consumption, smoke intake and enjoyment of smoking declined significantly during the pre-quit period. Forty-one (82%) participants achieved 4 weeks validated abstinence. Abstainers experienced no detectable cigarette withdrawal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Most smokers seeking help with stopping appear to be able to tolerate doses of transdermal nicotine patch up to 84 mg/day during a 4-week pre-quit up-titration period with minimal side effects.

'Real-world' compensatory behaviour with low nicotine concentration e-liquid: subjective effects and nicotine, acrolein and formaldehyde exposure

AIMS

To compare the effects of (i) high versus low nicotine concentration e-liquid, (ii) fixed versus adjustable power and (iii) the interaction between the two on: (a) vaping behaviour, (b) subjective effects, (c) nicotine intake and (d) exposure to acrolein and formaldehyde in e-cigarette users vaping in their everyday setting.

DESIGN

Counterbalanced, repeated measures with four conditions: (i) low nicotine (6 mg/ml)/fixed power; (ii) low nicotine/adjustable power; (iii) high nicotine (18 mg/ml)/fixed power; and (iv) high nicotine/adjustable power.

SETTING

London and the South East, England.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty experienced e-cigarette users (recruited between September 2016 and February 2017) vaped ad libitum using an eVic Supreme™ with a 'Nautilus Aspire' tank over 4 weeks (1 week per condition).

MEASUREMENTS

Puffing patterns [daily puff number (PN), puff duration (PD), interpuff interval (IPI)], ml of e-liquid consumed, changes to power (where permitted) and subjective effects (urge to vape, nicotine withdrawal symptoms) were measured in each condition. Nicotine intake was measured via salivary cotinine. 3-Hydroxypropylmercapturic acid (3-HPMA), a metabolite of the toxicant acrolein, and formate, a metabolite of the carcinogen formaldehyde, were measured in urine.

FINDINGS

There was a significant nicotine concentration × power interaction for PD (P < 0.01). PD was longer with low nicotine/fixed power compared with (i) high nicotine/fixed power (P < 0.001) and (ii) low nicotine/adjustable power (P < 0.01). PN and liquid consumed were higher in the low versus high nicotine condition (main effect of nicotine, P < 0.05). Urge to vape and withdrawal symptoms were lower, and nicotine intake was higher, in the high nicotine condition (main effects of nicotine: P < 0.01). While acrolein levels did not differ, there was a significant nicotine × power interaction for formaldehyde (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a lower nicotine concentration e-liquid may be associated with compensatory behaviour (e.g. higher number and duration of puffs) and increases in negative affect, urge to vape and formaldehyde exposure.

Tackling obesity in areas of high social deprivation: clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a task-based weight management group programme - a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of people require help to manage their weight. The NHS recommends weight loss advice by general practitioners and/or a referral to a practice nurse. Although this is helpful for some, more effective approaches that can be disseminated economically on a large scale are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether or not a task-based weight management programme [Weight Action Programme (WAP)] has better long-term effects than a 'best practice' intervention provided in primary care by practice nurses.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

General practices in east London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred and thirty adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30 kg/m² or a BMI of ≥ 28 kg/m² plus comorbidities were recruited from local general practices and via media publicity. Those who had a BMI of > 45 kg/m², had lost > 5% of their body weight in the previous 6 months, were currently pregnant or taking psychiatric medications were excluded. Participants were randomised (2 : 1) to the WAP or nurse arms.

INTERVENTIONS

The WAP intervention was delivered in eight weekly group sessions that combined dietary and physical activity, advice and self-monitoring in a group-oriented intervention. The initial course was followed by 10 monthly group maintenance sessions open to all participants in this study arm. The practice nurse intervention (best usual care) consisted of four one-to-one sessions delivered over 8 weeks, and included standard advice on diet and physical activity based on NHS 'Change4Life' materials and motivational support.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was weight change at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included change in BMI, waist circumference and blood pressure, and proportion of participants losing at least 5% and 10% of baseline body weight. Staff collecting measurements at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle, and included all participants with at least one recorded outcome at either 1, 2, 6 or 12 months. The analysis employed a mixed-effects linear regression model, adjusted for baseline weight, age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status and general practice. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels questionnaire was completed and used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) within the cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESULTS

There were 330 participants (WAP arm, n = 221; nurse arm, n = 109; 72% women). A total of 291 (88%) participants (WAP arm, n = 194; nurse arm, n = 97) were included in the main analysis for the primary outcome. Weight loss at 12 months was greater in the WAP arm than in the nurse intervention arm [-4.2 kg vs. -2.3 kg; difference -1.9 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.7 to -0.1 kg; p = 0.04]. Participants in the WAP arm were more likely than participants in the nurse arm to have lost at least 5% of their baseline body weight at 12 months (41% vs. 27%; odds ratio 14.61, 95% CI 2.32 to 91.96; p = 0.004). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for WAP over and above the nurse arm is £7742 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

A WAP delivered in general practice better promotes weight loss over 12 months than a best usual practice nurse-led weight loss programme.

LIMITATIONS

The trial recruited mostly women. Research is needed into factors that would make weight loss programmes more attractive to men.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45820471.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 79. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Methodological Quality and Effectiveness of Technology-Based Smoking Cessation Interventions for Disadvantaged Groups: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Aims

To assess the methodological quality and effectiveness of technology-based smoking cessation interventions in disadvantaged groups.

Method

Four databases (EMBASE, Cochrane, Medline, and PsycInfo) were searched for studies conducted from 1980 to May 2016. Randomized controlled trials that compared a behavioral smoking cessation intervention delivered primarily through a technology-based platform (eg, mobile phone) with a no-intervention comparison group among disadvantaged smokers were included. Three reviewers assessed all relevant studies for inclusion, and one reviewer extracted study, participant and intervention-level data, with a subset crosschecked by a second reviewer.

Results

Thirteen studies targeting disadvantaged smokers (n =4820) were included. Only one study scored highly in terms of methodological rigor on EPOC criteria for judging risk of bias. Of the 13 studies using a technology-based platform, most utilized websites (n = 5) or computer programs (n = 5), and seven additionally offered nicotine replacement therapy. Technology-based interventions increased the odds of smoking cessation for disadvantaged groups at 1 month (odds ratio [OR] 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10, 2.63), 3 months (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07, 1.59), 6 months (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03, 1.62), and 18 months post-intervention (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.11, 3.01).

Conclusion

Few methodologically rigorous studies were identified. Mobile phone text-messaging, computer- and website-delivered quit support showed promise at increasing quit rates among Indigenous, psychiatric and inpatient substance use disorder patients. Further research is needed to address the role technology-based interventions have on overcoming health inequalities to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups.

Implications

This review provides the first quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of a range of technology-based smoking cessation interventions among disadvantaged smokers, with separate estimates on the basis of intervention type, and cessation outcome measure. Providing cost-effective, easily accessible and real-time smoking cessation treatment is needed, and innovative technology-based platforms will help reach this endpoint. These interventions need to be tested in larger scale randomized controlled trial designs and target broader disadvantaged groups. Data collection beyond 6 months is also needed in order to establish the efficacy of these intervention approaches on long-term cessation rates among disadvantaged population groups.

"I'm not strong enough; I'm not good enough. I can't do this, I'm failing"- A qualitative study of low-socioeconomic status smokers' experiences with accesssing cessation support and the role for alternative technology-based support

BACKGROUND

The social gradient in smoking rates persist with an overrepresentation of smoking and its associated harms concentrated within lower socioeconomic status (SES) populations. Low-SES smokers are motivated to quit but face multiple barriers when engaging a quit attempt. An understanding of the current treatment service model from the perspectives of treatment-seeking low-SES smokers is needed to inform the design of alternative smoking cessation support services tailored to the needs of low-SES populations. This qualitative study aimed to: i) explore low-SES smokers' recent quitting experiences; ii) assess factors that impact treatment engagement; and iii) determine the acceptability and feasibility of alternative approaches to smoking cessation.

METHOD

Low-SES participants (n = 24) previously enrolled in a smoking cessation RCT participated in either a semi-structured focus group or in-depth telephone interview. Data was obtained and analysed using thematic analysis from October 2015 to June 2016. Analysis was deductive from the interview guide and supplemented inductively.

RESULTS

Participants expressed feelings of guilt and shame around their smoking behaviour and experienced stigmatisation for their smoking. Guilt, shame, and stigmatisation negatively impacted treatment seeking behaviours with most avoiding current quit services. Costs of pharmacotherapy and treatment adherence were commonly cited barriers to treatment success. Electronic-cigarettes were perceived to be unsafe due to uncertainty on their legal status and regulatory restrictions. Technology-based text-messaging quit support was endorsed as a more favourable alternative compared to existing behavioural treatment services.

CONCLUSION

Stigmatisation was commonly endorsed and acted as an impediment to current treatment utilisation. Electronic-cigarettes may present a viable harm reduction alternative, but their likely uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in Australia is limited by smokers' uncertainty about their regulation and legality. Mobile phone based cessation support may provide an alternative to telephone counselling and overcome the stigmatisation low-SES smokers face while trying to quit.

An innovative team-based weightloss competition to reduce cardiovascular and diabetes risk among Māori and Pacific people: rationale and method for the study and its evaluation

Background

Obesity rates for New Zealand (NZ) Pacific and Māori (NZ indigenous people) are among the highest in the world. Long-term results of weight management programmes for adults have been modest but primarily focused on individuals. This paper describes the rationale and methodology for a trial of a culturally tailored team-based weightloss competition conducted online with community level support.

Methods/Design

A quasi-experimental design was used to compare an intervention and control group. Three six-month competitions with seven teams of seven Māori or Pacific people (N = 147) were run. Eligible participants were: Māori or Pacific, 16 years of age and above, obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) and either at risk of or already diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c >50 mmol/mol) or cardiovascular disease.

The intervention facilitated group use of an internet-based competition offering financial incentives, education and support. The primary outcome was percentage of individual weight lost at 12-months. Secondary outcomes were percentage reduced total cholesterol and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Data collected at baseline, 6-months and 12-months included: height, body weight, blood lipids and HbA1c, eating and dieting habits, family support, food access, alcohol use, nutrition literacy, activity levels, perceptions of weight, stress and sleep, and, perceived contagion effect. Process evaluation tasks will inform acceptability.

Discussion

An attractive, easy to understand weight change programme that effectively reduces disease risk among Māori and Pacific is desperately needed. Web-based delivered support and information to largely self-directed teams could also ease exponential rises in costs to the health system.

Trial registration

Trial Id: ACTRN12617000871347.