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.

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.

Acceptability and outcome of an Internet-based smoking cessation programme

SETTING

Three district health boards (DHBs), organisations that govern public hospitals and services in Auckland, New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a commercial web-based smoking cessation programme (Smokestop).

DESIGN

Smokestop was offered free of charge to 126 staff members of three Auckland DHBs who wanted to stop smoking. Following a 30 minute face-to-face enrolment meeting, participants were able to log on and use the programme. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was available at no cost. All participants who used the programme at least once were followed up at 1, 3 and 6 months after first logging on for assessment of smoking status by self-report verified by carbon monoxide (CO) in expired breath.

RESULTS

Of 104 participants who logged onto the programme, 12 (12%) achieved 6-month continuous CO-validated abstinence. Participant feedback was largely positive: 46% agreed that the programme had assisted them and 74% stated they would recommend it to other smokers. The concomitant use of NRT was seen as an important component.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that this internet-based smoking cessation programme is an acceptable method to deliver behavioural support to people who want help in stopping smoking, and that it shows promise as a smoking cessation intervention.

Non-nicotine pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation

International chronic obstructive pulmonary disease guidelines recommend that smokers be strongly advised to quit, and should be offered help in doing so. The most effective smoking-cessation interventions combine behavioural support with pharmacotherapies. For smokers who do not wish to use nicotine replacement treatments, bupropion is a safe and effective non-nicotine alternative first-line treatment. Nortriptyline and clonidine have demonstrated efficacy in aiding smoking cessation, but are regarded as second-line therapies. A number of other non-nicotine treatments show promise, but more data are required before these can be recommended in assisting smokers to stop.

Nicotine replacement therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease: guidelines for health professionals

The causal relationship between cigarette smoking and cardiovascular disease (CVD) is well known and it is of great importance that smokers with CVD are encouraged to stop. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is an effective aid to smoking cessation. However, its use in patients with CVD is often avoided because of warnings on product labelling. This is not justified, as NRT use in dependent smokers is much safer than smoking. Arguments are presented for the following guidelines which may be used when recommending NRT to patients with CVD; (i) NRT can normally be recommended to smokers with CVD who tried and failed to quit without such help; (ii) in patients who have experienced a serious cardiovascular event within the past 4 weeks, involve the patient's consulting physician. In less acute cases this is not needed; (iii) ensure dosing does not exceed the manufacturer's recommendation; (iv) warn patients to stop using NRT if they relapse to smoking; and (v) target motivated smokers (i.e. those seeking help), and where possible provide or arrange intensive behavioural support to accompany NRT. This advice is conservative, but will hopefully remove some obstacles faced by smoking cessation counsellors and other health professionals when considering the use of NRT in people with history of CVD.