Cigarette Smoking and Risk Perceptions During the COVID-19 Pandemic Reported by Recently Hospitalized Participants in a Smoking Cessation Trial

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease. Understanding smokers' responses to the pandemic will help assess its public health impact and inform future public health and provider messages to smokers.

OBJECTIVE

To assess risk perceptions and change in tobacco use among current and former smokers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey conducted in May-July 2020 (55% response rate) PARTICIPANTS: 694 current and former daily smokers (mean age 53, 40% male, 78% white) who had been hospitalized pre-COVID-19 and enrolled into a smoking cessation clinical trial at hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

MAIN MEASURES

Perceived risk of COVID-19 due to tobacco use; changes in tobacco consumption and interest in quitting tobacco use; self-reported quitting and relapse since January 2020.

KEY RESULTS

68% (95% CI, 65-72%) of respondents believed that smoking increases the risk of contracting COVID-19 or having a more severe case. In adjusted analyses, perceived risk was higher in Massachusetts where COVID-19 had already surged than in Pennsylvania and Tennessee which were pre-surge during survey administration (AOR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.07-2.28). Higher perceived COVID-19 risk was associated with increased interest in quitting smoking (AOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01-2.92). During the pandemic, 32% (95% CI, 27-37%) of smokers increased, 37% (95% CI, 33-42%) decreased, and 31% (95% CI, 26-35%) did not change their cigarette consumption. Increased smoking was associated with higher perceived stress (AOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16-1.91). Overall, 11% (95% CI, 8-14%) of respondents who smoked in January 2020 (pre-COVID-19) had quit smoking at survey (mean, 6 months later) while 28% (95% CI, 22-34%) of former smokers relapsed. Higher perceived COVID-19 risk was associated with higher odds of quitting and lower odds of relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Most smokers believed that smoking increased COVID-19 risk. Smokers' responses to the pandemic varied, with increased smoking related to stress and increased quitting associated with perceived COVID-19 vulnerability.

Integrating tobacco treatment into lung cancer screening practices: Study protocol for the Screen ASSIST randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Integrating tobacco treatment services into lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to leverage a 'teachable moment' to promote cessation among long-term smokers and reduce disparities in tobacco treatment access. This protocol paper describes the Screen ASSIST (Aiding Screening Support In Stopping Tobacco) trial, which will identify how to best deliver evidence-driven tobacco treatment in the context of LCS.

METHODS

Screen ASSIST is a randomized clinical trial with a 3-factor, fully crossed factorial design that enrolls current smokers (any cigarette use in the past 30 days) scheduled to attend LCS at multiple sites in the Mass General Brigham healthcare system. To maximize reach, recruitment is conducted at 3 time points: 1) at the time of LCS scheduling, 2) at the LCS visit, and 3) after the participant has received their LCS results. Participants are stratified by LCS study site and recruitment point and randomly assigned into 8 groups that test intervention components varying on telehealth counseling duration (4 weeks vs. 8 weeks), nicotine replacement therapy duration (2 weeks vs. 8 weeks), and systematic screening and referral for social determinants of health via a service named 'AuntBertha' (referral vs. no referral). The primary study outcome is self-reported past 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. This trial will also assess systems integration and evaluate implementation of the intervention.

DISCUSSION

Screen ASSIST will identify the most effective combination of tobacco cessation treatments within the LCS context, in order to improve the cost-effectiveness of LCS and quality of life among long-term heavy smokers.

Understanding engagement behaviors and rapport building in tobacco cessation telephone counseling: An analysis of audio-recorded counseling calls

INTRODUCTION

Though telephone counseling is a modality commonly used to promote health behavior change, including tobacco cessation, specific counselor and participant behaviors that indicate engagement and therapeutic alliance remain poorly characterized in the literature. We sought to explore smokers' and counselors' engagement and rapport-building behaviors in telephone counseling for smoking cessation and patterns of these behaviors by smokers' psychiatric symptoms.

METHODS

The study team transcribed, audio-recorded tobacco cessation counseling calls for the presence of engagement and rapport-building behaviors among recently hospitalized participants enrolled in a smoking cessation randomized controlled trial (RCT). The study used baseline data from the RCT to explore frequencies of counselors' and smokers' behaviors among smokers who had reported more (vs. fewer) symptoms of depression (PHQ8 ≥ 10) or anxiety (GAD7 ≥ 10) at study entry.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 37) were mostly female (23/37), White (26/37), with a median age of 58. At study entry while hospitalized, moderate-to-severe symptoms of depression (18/37) and anxiety (22/37) were common. Participant-led engagement behaviors included referencing past quit attempts, asking questions, elaborating response to yes/no questions, expressing commitment to behavior change, and assigning importance to nonautomated calls. Counselor-led behaviors included building off prior interaction, empathy, normalizing challenges, reframing and summarizing, validating achievements, and expressing shared experience. Both participants and counselors engaged via general discussion and humor. Participant-led engagement behaviors appeared more often in call transcripts among patients with higher baseline depression and anxiety symptoms compared to those with lower symptom scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This study classified participant-led, counselor-led, and shared engagement behaviors during tobacco cessation counseling calls. Increased engagement via telephone counseling may be important for individuals with psychiatric symptoms identified at the start of treatment.

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.

Examining the effects of stress and psychological distress on smoking abstinence in cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients who smoke report more stress and psychological distress than patients who do not smoke. It is unclear how these emotional symptoms may modify smoking behavior in cancer patients. We examined the influence of a smoking cessation intervention for cancer patients on stress and distress, and the effects of these symptoms on smoking abstinence.

METHODS

Mixed-methods secondary analysis of data from the Smokefree Support Study, a two-site randomized controlled trial examining the efficacy of Intensive (IT; n = 153) vs. Standard Treatment (ST; n = 150) for smoking cessation in newly diagnosed cancer patients. Stress coping, perceived stress, distress, and anxiety were self-reported at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Abstinence was biochemically-confirmed at 6 months. A subset of patients (n = 72) completed qualitative exit-interviews.

RESULTS

Patients were on average, 58 years old, 56% female, and smoked a median of 10 cigarettes/day. There were no significant treatment group × time interactions or main effects of treatment group on stress or distress measures (p's > 0.05), however there were significant main effects of time suggesting symptom improvements on each measure in both study groups (p's < 0.05). In adjusted logistic regression models, lower levels anxiety at 3 months predicted confirmed smoking abstinence at 6 months (p = .03). Qualitatively, at 6 months, patients reported their stress and smoking were connected and that the cessation counseling was helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial report decreases in stress, distress and anxiety over time, and anxiety symptoms may impact smoking cessation success at follow-up resulting in an important intervention target.

Balancing Consideration of the Risks and Benefits of E-Cigarettes

The topic of e-cigarettes is controversial. Opponents focus on e-cigarettes' risks for young people, while supporters emphasize the potential for e-cigarettes to assist smokers in quitting smoking. Most US health organizations, media coverage, and policymakers have focused primarily on risks to youths. Because of their messaging, much of the public-including most smokers-now consider e-cigarette use as dangerous as or more dangerous than smoking. By contrast, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that e-cigarette use is likely far less hazardous than smoking. Policies intended to reduce adolescent vaping may also reduce adult smokers' use of e-cigarettes in quit attempts. Because evidence indicates that e-cigarette use can increase the odds of quitting smoking, many scientists, including this essay's authors, encourage the health community, media, and policymakers to more carefully weigh vaping's potential to reduce adult smoking-attributable mortality. We review the health risks of e-cigarette use, the likelihood that vaping increases smoking cessation, concerns about youth vaping, and the need to balance valid concerns about risks to youths with the potential benefits of increasing adult smoking cessation.

Harm reduction for smokers living with HIV

Tobacco use is now a leading cause of death in people living with HIV in the USA. Increasing cessation rates in this group is a public health priority, yet the results of clinical trials aimed at optimising tobacco treatment strategies have been largely disappointing. Combinations of behavioural and pharmacological cessation therapies in people living with HIV have yielded increases in short-term quit rates, but few have shown long-term efficacy. Even with aggressive therapy combining intensive behavioural treatment with pharmacological agents, most smokers living with HIV continue to smoke. The generalised approach to tobacco treatment that prevails in guidelines and in clinical practices might do a disservice to these individuals, who represent a sizable segment of the population of people living with HIV. Harm reduction is a sensible and needed approach for smokers living with HIV who are unable or unwilling to quit. In this Viewpoint, we take an expansive view of harm reduction to include not only cutting down on cigarette intake for persistent smokers, but also reducing smoking's downstream health effects by increasing lung cancer screening and by controlling concurrent cardiovascular risk factors, especially hypertension and hyperlipidaemia.

Sustained Care Smoking Cessation Intervention for Individuals Hospitalized for Psychiatric Disorders: The Helping HAND 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Smoking among individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) represents a major public health problem. Intervening during a psychiatric hospital stay may provide an opportunity to aid engagement in smoking cessation treatment and facilitate success in quitting.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of a multicomponent, sustained care (SusC) smoking cessation intervention in adults with SMI receiving inpatient psychiatric care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Helping HAND 3 randomized clinical trial compared SusC with usual care (UC) among individuals with SMI who smoked daily and were receiving inpatient psychiatric care in Austin, Texas, in a single hospital. The study was conducted from July 2015 through August 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

The UC intervention involved brief smoking cessation information, self-help materials and advice from the admitting nurse, and an offer to provide nicotine replacement therapy during hospitalization. The SusC intervention included 4 main components designed to facilitate patient engagement with postdischarge smoking cessation resources: (1) inpatient motivational counseling; (2) free transdermal nicotine patches on discharge; (3) an offer of free postdischarge telephone quitline, text-based, and/or web-based smoking cessation counseling, and (4) postdischarge automated interactive voice response calls or text messages.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. A secondary outcome was self-reported smoking cessation treatment use at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 353 participants were randomized, of whom 342 were included in analyses (mean [SD] age, 35.8 [12.3] years; 268 White individuals [78.4%]; 280 non-Hispanic individuals [81.9%]; 169 women [49.4%]). They reported smoking a mean (SD) of 16.9 (10.4) cigarettes per day. Participants in the SusC group evidenced significantly higher 6-month follow-up point-prevalence abstinence rates than those in the UC group (8.9% vs 3.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.95 [95% CI, 1.24-6.99]; P = .01). The number needed to treat was 18.5 (95% CI, 9.6-306.4). A series of sensitivity analyses confirmed effectiveness. Finally, participants in the SusC group were significantly more likely to report using smoking cessation treatment over the 6 months postdischarge compared with participants in the UC group (74.6% vs 40.5%; relative risk, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.51-2.25]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this randomized clinical trial provide evidence for the effectiveness of a scalable, multicomponent intervention in promoting smoking cessation treatment use and smoking abstinence in individuals with SMI following hospital discharge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02204956.

A Qualitative Study of the Impact of COVID-19 on Smoking Behavior for Participants in a Post-Hospitalization Smoking Cessation Trial

(1) Background: COVID-19 has substantially altered individual environments and behaviors. We aim to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the smoking behavior of individuals trying to quit tobacco. (2) Methods: This study presents a qualitative analysis of individual interviews focused on perceived impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on tobacco use among 39 participants in the Helping HAND 4 (HH4) post-hospitalization smoking cessation trial (NCT03603496). (3) Results: Emergent impacts of COVID-19 included change in routine, isolation, employment changes, and financial challenges; these in turn were associated with boredom, altered cravings and triggers, and increased stress. The availability of effective coping mechanisms instead of smoking to deal with stress heavily influenced subsequent smoking behavior. These results were triangulated with the Transactional Model of Stress, providing a framework to elucidate connections between factors such as perceived control, self-efficacy, and dispositional coping style, and highlighting potential areas for intervention. (4) Conclusions: Results suggest that stress during the COVID-19 pandemic may undermine effective coping skills among individuals enrolled in a post-hospitalization smoking cessation trial. Strengthening effective coping skills (e.g., minimizing the use of tobacco as a default stress response) and increasing perceived control and self-efficacy are promising intervention targets.

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.

A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Phase 2b Trial of Cytisinicline in Adult Smokers (The ORCA-1 Trial)

Introduction

Cytisinicline (known as cytisine), a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, is a smoking cessation aid currently marketed in Central and Eastern Europe using a 1.5-mg/tablet 25-day downward titration schedule. No prior studies have evaluated other doses or administration schedules. This study evaluated the effects of a higher dosage and simplified dosing schedule on drug efficacy and tolerability.

Methods

ORCA-1 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that provided cytisinicline or placebo tablets plus behavioral support for 25 days. Adult smokers (>10 cigarettes daily) committed to quitting smoking were randomized to compare 2 cytisinicline doses (1.5 mg and 3 mg) versus placebo, and 2 administration schedules [downward titration versus 3 times daily (TID)]. Primary outcome was a reduction in expected cigarettes smoked at end of treatment; secondary outcomes were biochemically confirmed 7-day abstinence at Week 4 and continuous abstinence from Weeks 5 to 8.

Results

Among 254 participants, those in cytisinicline arms (regardless of dose or schedule) had greater reductions in cigarettes smoked versus placebo, with differences observed in 3 cytisinicline arms statistically significant versus placebo. All cytisinicline arms had statistically significantly higher abstinence rates at Week 4 versus placebo. Both cytisinicline arms using TID schedules had statistically significantly higher continuous abstinence rates from Weeks 5 to 8 compared with placebo. Participants in the cytisinicline 3-mg TID arm had the highest abstinence rate. There were no safety concerns with either 1.5-mg or 3-mg cytisinicline.

Conclusion

Based on simpler dose scheduling, excellent tolerability, and best-continued abstinence rate, cytisinicline 3-mg TID was selected for future Phase 3 studies.

Implications

Although the 1.5-mg 25-day titration schedule has been marketed in Central and Eastern Europe for decades, this study explored using a higher dosage and a simplified dosing schedule for impact on cytisinicline efficacy and tolerability. Based on these results, a Phase 3 program was initiated using cytisinicline 3-mg tablets on a TID schedule for potential market approval in the United States.

Examining the effects of problematic alcohol use on cigarette abstinence in recently diagnosed cancer patients enrolled in a cessation trial: A secondary analysis

AIMS

Among people with cancer, dual alcohol and tobacco use increases risk for morbidity and mortality. Most smoking cessation clinical trials with this patient population have excluded individuals with problematic alcohol use. This investigation examined whether problematic alcohol use affects smoking cessation in cancer patients.

METHODS

Mixed-methods secondary analysis of data from the Smokefree Support Study, a randomized-controlled trial examining the efficacy of Intensive (IT; n = 153) vs. Standard Treatment (ST; n = 150) for smoking cessation in newly diagnosed cancer patients. Problematic alcohol use was assessed at enrollment using the Cut-Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye-Opener (CAGE), weekly frequency of alcohol use and binge drinking measures. Alcohol use was categorized as: no current alcohol use, moderate and problematic use. The primary outcome was biochemically-confirmed cigarette abstinence at 6-months. A subset of patients (n = 72) completed qualitative exit-interviews.

RESULTS

Among all participants, biochemically-confirmed cigarette abstinence rates were 25% (n = 32), 28% (n = 27), and 36% (n = 20) for participants reporting no current alcohol use, moderate use, and problematic use, respectively (p = 0.33). In logistic regression analysis, neither problematic alcohol use (AOR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.35-2.67, p = .94) nor the problematic use by study arm interaction (AOR = 2.22, 95% CI = 0.59-8.39, p = .24) were associated with biochemically-confirmed 6-month abstinence. Qualitatively, participants reported that drinking alcohol triggers urges to smoke.

CONCLUSION

Newly diagnosed cancer patients reporting problematic alcohol use were not less likely to quit smoking than those without. Additional research is needed to investigate whether problematic alcohol users may benefit from smoking and alcohol behavior change interventions at the time of cancer diagnosis.

Asking the Right Questions About Secondhand Smoke

INTRODUCTION

Despite knowledge about major health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) exposure, systematic incorporation of SHS screening and counseling in clinical settings has not occurred.

METHODS

A three-round modified Delphi Panel of tobacco control experts was convened to build consensus on the screening questions that should be asked and identify opportunities and barriers to SHS exposure screening and counseling. The panel considered four questions: (1) what questions should be asked about SHS exposure; (2) what are the top priorities to advance the goal of ensuring that these questions are asked; (3) what are the barriers to achieving these goals; and (4) how might these barriers be overcome. Each panel member submitted answers to the questions. Responses were summarized and successive rounds were reviewed by panel members for consolidation and prioritization.

RESULTS

Panelists agreed that both adults and children should be screened during clinical encounters by asking if they are exposed or have ever been exposed to smoke from any tobacco products in their usual environment. The panel found that consistent clinician training, quality measurement or other accountability, and policy and electronic health records interventions were needed to successfully implement consistent screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel successfully generated screening questions and identified priorities to improve SHS exposure screening. Policy interventions and stakeholder engagement are needed to overcome barriers to implementing effective SHS screening.

IMPLICATIONS

In a modified Delphi panel, tobacco control and clinical prevention experts agreed that all adults and children should be screened during clinical encounters by asking if they are exposed or have ever been exposed to smoke from tobacco products. Consistent training, accountability, and policy and electronic health records interventions are needed to implement consistent screening. Increasing SHS screening will have a significant impact on public health and costs.

Quit Experiences among Primary Care Patients Enrolled in a Smoking Cessation Pilot RCT Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US adults' smoking and quitting behaviors is unclear. We explored the impact of COVID-19 on smoking behaviors, risk perceptions, and reactions to text messages during a statewide stay-at-home advisory among primary care patients who were trying to quit. From May-June 2020, we interviewed smokers enrolled in a 12-week, pilot cessation trial providing text messaging and mailed nicotine replacement medication (NCT04020718). Twenty-two individuals (82% white, mean age 55 years), representing 88% of trial participants during the stay-at-home advisory, completed exit interviews; four (18%) of them reported abstinence. Interviews were thematically analyzed by two coders. COVID-19-induced environmental changes had mixed effects, facilitating quitting for some and impeding quitting for others. While stress increased for many, those who quit found ways to cope with stress. Generally, participants felt at risk for COVID-19 complications but not at increased risk of becoming infected. Reactions to COVID-19 and quitting behaviors differed across age groups, older participants reported difficulties coping with isolation (e.g., feeling disappointed when a text message came from the study and not a live person). Findings suggest that cessation interventions addressing stress and boredom are needed during COVID-19, while smokers experiencing isolation may benefit from live-person supports.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: A Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend offering cessation interventions to smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, but there is little data comparing specific cessation approaches in this setting. We compared the benefits and costs of different smoking cessation interventions to help screening programs select specific cessation approaches.

METHODS

We conducted a societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model simulating individuals born in 1960 over their lifetimes. Model inputs were derived from Medicare, national cancer registries, published studies, and micro-costing of cessation interventions. We modeled annual lung cancer screening following 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines plus cessation interventions offered to current smokers at first screen, including pharmacotherapy only or pharmacotherapy with electronic and/or web-based, telephone, individual, or group counseling. Outcomes included lung cancer cases and deaths, life-years saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Compared with screening alone, all cessation interventions decreased cases of and deaths from lung cancer. Compared incrementally, efficient cessation strategies included pharmacotherapy with either web-based cessation ($555 per QALY), telephone counseling ($7562 per QALY), or individual counseling ($35 531 per QALY). Cessation interventions continued to have costs per QALY well below accepted willingness to pay thresholds even with the lowest intervention effects and was more cost-effective in cohorts with higher smoking prevalence.

CONCLUSION

All smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening are likely to provide benefits at reasonable costs. Because the differences between approaches were small, the choice of intervention should be guided by practical concerns such as staff training and availability.

Perceived risk, attitudes, and behavior of cigarette smokers and nicotine vapers receiving buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking may increase the risk of COVID-19 complications, reinforcing the urgency of smoking cessation in populations with high smoking prevalence such as individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). Whether the COVID-19 pandemic has altered perceptions, motivation to quit, or tobacco use among cigarette smokers and nicotine e-cigarette vapers with OUD is unknown.

METHODS

A telephone survey was conducted in March-July 2020 of current cigarette smokers or nicotine vapers with OUD who were stable on buprenorphine treatment at five Boston (MA) area community health centers. The survey assessed respondents' perceived risk of COVID-19 due to smoking or vaping, interest in quitting, quit attempts and change in tobacco consumption during the pandemic.

RESULTS

222/520 patients (43 %) completed the survey, and 145 were asked questions related to COVID-19. Of these, 61 % smoked cigarettes only, 13 % vaped nicotine only, and 26 % were dual users. Nearly 80 % of participants believed that smoking and vaping increased their risk of COVID-19 infection or complications. Smokers with this belief reported an increased interest in quitting (AOR 4.6, 95 % CI:1.7-12.4). Overall, 49 % of smokers and 42 % of vapers reported increased interest in quitting due to the pandemic; 24 % and 20 %, respectively, reported attempting to quit since the pandemic. However, 35 % of smokers and 27 % of vapers reported increasing smoking and vaping, respectively, during the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with OUD believed that smoking and vaping increased their vulnerability to COVID-19, half reported increased interest in quitting, but others reported increasing smoking and vaping during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of Smoking Cessation Interventions Initiated During Hospitalization Among HIV-Infected Smokers

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is a key determinant of mortality among people living with HIV (PLWH).

METHODS

To better understand the effects of smoking cessation interventions in PLWH, we conducted a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials of hospital-initiated smoking interventions conducted through the Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART). In each study, cigarette smokers were randomly assigned to usual care or a smoking cessation intervention. The primary outcome was self-reported past 30-day tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Abstinence rates were compared between PLWH and participants without HIV and by treatment arm, using both complete-case and intention-to-treat analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the effect of HIV status on 6-month tobacco abstinence and to determine predictors of smoking cessation within PLWH.

RESULTS

Among 5550 hospitalized smokers, there were 202 (3.6%) PLWH. PLWH smoked fewer cigarettes per day and were less likely to be planning to quit than smokers without HIV. At 6 months, cessation rates did not differ between intervention and control groups among PLWH (28.9% vs. 30.5%) or smokers without HIV (36.1% vs. 34.1%). In multivariable regression analysis, HIV status was not significantly associated with smoking cessation at 6 months. Among PLWH, confidence in quitting was the only clinical factor independently associated with smoking cessation (OR 2.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.8, p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

HIV status did not alter likelihood of quitting smoking after hospital discharge, whether or not the smoker was offered a tobacco cessation intervention, but power was limited to identify potentially important differences.

IMPLICATIONS

PLWH had similar quit rates to participants without HIV following a hospital-initiated smoking cessation intervention. The findings suggest that factors specific to HIV infection may not influence response to smoking cessation interventions and that all PLWH would benefit from efforts to assist in quitting smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(1) Using "warm handoffs" to link hospitalized smokers with tobacco treatment after discharge: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial: NCT01305928. (2) Web-based smoking cessation intervention that transitions from inpatient to outpatient: NCT01277250. (3) Effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions for urban hospital patients: NCT01363245. (4) Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers (HelpingHAND2): NCT01714323.

Defining and Measuring Abstinence in Clinical Trials of Smoking Cessation Interventions: An Updated Review

BACKGROUND

Changes in tobacco products, use patterns, and assessment technology in the last 15 years led the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) Treatment Research Network to call for an update to the 2003 SRNT recommendations for assessing abstinence in clinical trials of smoking cessation interventions.

METHODS

The SRNT Treatment Research Network convened a group of investigators with decades of experience in conducting tobacco treatment clinical trials. To arrive at the updated recommendations, the authors reviewed the recommendations of the prior SRNT Workgroup as well as current literature. Ten additional experts in the field provided feedback on this paper and these recommendations.

RESULTS

With respect to defining abstinence, the authors recommend: (1) continuing to use the definition of no use of combustible tobacco products (regardless of use of noncombustible tobacco products [e.g., snus] and alternative products [e.g., e-cigarettes]) and collecting additional data to permit alternate abstinence definitions; (2) no use of combustible or smokeless tobacco products; and (3) no use of combustible or smokeless tobacco products or alternative products, as appropriate for the research question being addressed. The authors also recommend reporting point prevalence and prolonged abstinence at multiple timepoints (end of treatment, ≥3 months after the end of treatment, and ≥6 months postquit or posttreatment initiation).

CONCLUSIONS

Defining abstinence requires specification of which products a user must abstain from using, the type of abstinence (i.e., point prevalence or continuous), and the duration of abstinence. These recommendations are intended to serve as guidelines for investigators as they collect the necessary data to accurately describe participants' abstinence during smoking cessation clinical trials.

IMPLICATIONS

This paper provides updated recommendations for defining abstinence in the context of smoking cessation treatment clinical trials.

Enhancing employer coverage of smoking cessation treatment: A randomized trial of the Partners in Helping You Quit (PiHQ) program

The workplace is a key channel for delivering tobacco cessation treatment to a population. Employers can provide workplace-based programs and/or financial incentives such as health insurance benefits that cover the cost of treatment accessed outside the workplace. Little is known about the effect of combining these strategies. We tested the benefit of adding a workplace cessation program, Partners in Helping You Quit (PiHQ), to comprehensive health insurance coverage of smoking cessation medications by Partners HealthCare, a large Boston-based healthcare delivery system. PiHQ offers biweekly telephone-based behavioral support, additional automated calls, and medication care coordination for 3 months then monthly telephone monitoring for 9 months. In a pragmatic randomized trial, employees who smoked were informed about the insurance benefit, then randomly assigned (2:1) to PiHQ or to active referral to a free 3-month phone-based community program, Massachusetts Quitline (QL). Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. During 2015-2018, 106 smokers (n = 73 PiHQ, n = 33 QL) enrolled (64% female; 75% white, 21% black; mean age 46 years, mean cigarettes/day = 13). More PiHQ than QL participants made a quit attempt by 3 months (82 vs. 61%, p < .02) and achieved the primary outcome, verified past 7-day cigarette abstinence at 6 months (31 vs. 12%, odds ratio 3.34, 95% CI, 1.05-10.60). Among participants using behavioral support, PiHQ participants completed more scheduled calls and rated counseling helpfulness higher than did QL participants. These results suggest that employers can enhance the impact of providing comprehensive health insurance coverage of smoking cessation medication by adding a phone-based worksite cessation program.

Electronic Cigarette Use and Cigarette Abstinence Over 2 Years Among U.S. Smokers in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study

INTRODUCTION

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) could benefit public health if they help current smokers to stop smoking long term, but evidence that they do so is limited. We aimed to determine the association between e-cigarette use and subsequent smoking cessation in a nationally representative cohort of US smokers followed for 2 years.

METHODS

We analyzed data from adult cigarette smokers in Waves 1 through 3 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. The primary exposure was e-cigarette use at Wave 1. The primary outcome was prolonged cigarette abstinence, defined as past 30-day cigarette abstinence at Waves 2 and 3 (1- and 2-year follow-up).

RESULTS

Among Wave 1 cigarette smokers, 3.6% were current daily e-cigarette users, 18% were current non-daily e-cigarette users, and 78% reported no current e-cigarette use. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, daily e-cigarette use at Wave 1 was associated with higher odds of prolonged cigarette smoking abstinence at Waves 2 and 3 compared to nonuse of e-cigarettes (11% vs. 6%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08 to 2.89). Non-daily e-cigarette use was not associated with prolonged cigarette smoking abstinence. Among Wave 1 daily e-cigarette users who were abstinent from cigarette smoking at Wave 3, 63% were using e-cigarettes at Wave 3.

CONCLUSIONS

In this longitudinal cohort study of US adult cigarette smokers, daily but not non-daily e-cigarette use was associated with higher odds of prolonged cigarette smoking abstinence over 2 years, compared to no e-cigarette use. Daily use of e-cigarettes may help some smokers to stop smoking combustible cigarettes.

IMPLICATIONS

In this nationally representative longitudinal cohort study of US adult cigarette smokers, daily e-cigarette use, compared to no e-cigarette use, was associated with a 77% increased odds of prolonged cigarette smoking abstinence over the subsequent 2 years. Regular use of e-cigarettes may help some smokers to stop smoking combustible cigarettes.

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.