Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

Factors associated with past-year attempts to quit e-cigarettes among current users: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Wave 4 (2017-2018)

Over 10 million adults report use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), with approximately 3.6 million reporting daily use. Even as the popularity of ENDS has increased, both as an available nicotine delivery system and an alternative to combustible cigarette smoking, few studies to date have examined ENDS cessation interest and related behaviors among ENDS users. The current study aimed to describe past year attempts to quit ENDS among current users and to investigate ENDS use / user characteristics associated with unsuccessful attempts to quit in the past year among adult, current, established ENDS users using data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study Wave 4. Over 10 % of ENDS users reported an attempt to quit completely in the past year, and 60 % indicated future intention to quit completely. Higher nicotine dependence, lower-frequency ENDS use, and higher interest in quitting were associated with past year attempts to quit ENDS. The current study adds support to claims that many ENDS users plan to quit using ENDS someday and highlights the need for continued research on ENDS cessation.

Treatment development, implementation, and participant baseline characteristics: A randomized pilot study of a tailored quitline intervention for individuals who smoke and vape

Background

Approximately 57,000 dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes call state tobacco quitlines in the U.S. each year.

Methods

This paper describes a behavioral intervention for dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes designed to increase cigarette abstinence. It also presents baseline data from a randomized pilot comparing the Enhanced E-cigarette Coaching (EEC) intervention with quitline treatment as usual (TAU). Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline callers were recruited at registration and randomized to EEC (n = 46) or TAU (n = 50). Treatment included 5 coaching calls and free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). EEC treatment included enhanced e-cigarette assessment, education, a shared decision-making quit plan development approach, and tailored behavioral support.

Results

Participants averaged 40.6 years of age and 19.2 cigarettes per day; 85% smoked daily, 48% vaped daily, and 53% reported medium to high e-cigarette dependence. Most reported using e-cigarettes to quit (43%) or to cut down (26%) on smoking. Most had previously tried to quit smoking (91%) and had tried FDA-approved cessation medications (79%). Beliefs about vaping, NRT, and smoking included misinformation. After discussing the relative risks of NRT, vaping, and smoking, most EEC participants (89%) selected a quit plan that incorporated both NRT and vaping.

Conclusions

At baseline, most participants reported a history of failed quit attempts with NRT and were vaping to quit or cut down on smoking, but they may need more support to completely quit smoking. If the EEC improves smoking outcomes, it would provide needed guidance on behavioral support best practices for individuals who vape and want to quit smoking.

Virtual Reality Technology Use in Cigarette Craving and Smoking Interventions (I "Virtually" Quit): Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Over the last 2 decades, virtual reality technologies (VRTs) have been proposed as a way to enhance and improve smoking cessation therapy.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to evaluate and summarize the current knowledge on the application of VRT in various smoking cessation therapies, as well as to explore potential directions for future research and intervention development.

METHODS

A literature review of smoking interventions using VRT was conducted.

RESULTS

Not all intervention studies included an alternative therapy or a placebo condition against which the effectiveness of the intervention could be benchmarked, or a follow-up measure to ensure that the effects were lasting. Virtual reality (VR) cue exposure therapy was the most extensively studied intervention, but its effect on long-term smoking behavior was inconsistent. Behavioral therapies such as a VR approach-avoidance task or gamified interventions were less common but reported positive results. Notably, only 1 study combined Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices with VRT.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of a behavioral component, as is done in the VR approach-avoidance task and gamified interventions, may be an interesting avenue for future research on smoking interventions. As Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices are still the subject of much controversy, their potential to support smoking cessation remains unclear. For future research, behavioral or multicomponent interventions are promising avenues of exploration. Future studies should improve their validity by comparing their intervention group with at least 1 alternative or placebo control group, as well as incorporating follow-up measures.

"It is the One Thing that has Worked": facilitators and barriers to switching to nicotine salt pod system e-cigarettes among African American and Latinx people who smoke: a content analysis

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes are a harm reduction strategy for individuals who smoke cigarettes who cannot or do not want to quit using FDA-approved cessation methods. Identifying perceived facilitators and barriers to switching among people who smoke cigarettes is critical to optimizing health impact. This is particularly important for the most dominant e-cigarette device, nicotine salt pod electronic cigarettes. We investigate the experience using pod electronic cigarettes among African American and Latinx individuals who smoke, the two largest racial/ethnic minority groups who experience significant health disparities.

METHODS

From July 2018 to May 2019, adults who smoked cigarettes, age 21 + (N = 114; M age = 44.6, 59.6% male, 52.6% African American from Kansas City, 47.4% Latinx from San Diego) received JUUL-brand electronic cigarettes (referred to hereafter as JUUL) for 6 weeks and answered interview questions at week six. We inquired what they liked and disliked about using JUUL, what helped with switching and made switching difficult, future intentions for continued JUUL use, and how JUUL compared to past smoking reduction methods. Responses were coded into themes by independent raters. Theme frequencies were analyzed separately by race/ethnicity and week 6 use trajectory (exclusive JUUL use, dual JUUL and cigarette use, exclusive cigarette use).

RESULTS

Clean/smell was the aspect of using JUUL most commonly liked (23%), followed by convenience (19%). Coughing/harshness was a more common barrier to switching for African American (44%) than Latinx (9%), and for continuing cigarette use (56%) than for those who exclusively switched or dually used JUUL and combustible cigarettes (15-21%). Most (78% African American; 90% Latinx) reported that the benefits of using JUUL outweighed barriers, and this varied by JUUL use trajectory: 94% exclusive switch, 86% dual use, and 42% continued cigarette use. The majority said they would continue using JUUL to replace cigarettes (83% African American; 94% Latinx) and that JUUL worked better than other methods to reduce cigarettes (72%).

CONCLUSION

African American and Latinx individuals who smoked experience using pod electronic cigarettes was generally positive. Understanding facilitators and impediments to switching to electronic cigarettes among racial/ethnic minority people who smoke can inform harm reduction interventions and reduce tobacco-related health disparities. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03511001 posted April 27, 2018.

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.

Prevalence of electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are concerns that the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS) in children and adolescents could potentially be harmful to health. Understanding the extent of use of these devices is crucial to informing public health policy. We aimed to synthesise the prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use in children and adolescents younger than 20 years.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we undertook an electronic search in five databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and Wiley Cochrane Library) from Jan 1, 2016, to Aug 31, 2020, and a grey literature search. Included studies reported on the prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use in nationally representative samples in populations younger than 20 years and collected data between the years 2016 and 2020. Studies were excluded if they were done in those aged 20 years or older, used data from specialist panels that did not apply appropriate weighting, or did not use methods that ensured recruitment of a nationally representative sample. We included the most recent data for each country. We combined multiple national estimates for a country if they were done in the same year. We undertook risk of bias assessment for all surveys included in the review using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist (by two reviewers in the author list). A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool overall prevalence estimates for ever, current, occasional, and daily use. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020199485.

FINDINGS

The most recent prevalence data from 26 national surveys representing 69 countries and territories, with a median sample size of 3925 (IQR 1=2266, IQR 3=10 593) children and adolescents was included. In children and adolescents aged between 8 years and younger than 20 years, the pooled prevalence for ever (defined as any lifetime use) ENDS or ENNDS use was 17·2% (95% CI 15-20, I2=99·9%), whereas for current use (defined as use in past 30 days) the pooled prevalence estimate was 7·8% (6-9, I2=99·8%). The pooled estimate for occasional use was 0·8% (0·5-1·2, I2=99·4%) for daily use and 7·5% (6·1-9·1, I2=99·4%) for occasional use. Prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use was highest in high-income geographical regions. In terms of study quality, all surveys scored had a low risk of bias for the sampling frame used, due to the nationally representative nature of the studies. The most poorly conducted methodological feature of the included studies was subjects and setting described in detail. Few surveys reported on the use of flavours or types of ENDS or ENNDS.

INTERPRETATION

There is significant variability in the prevalence of ENDS and ENNDS use in children and adolescents globally by country income status. These findings are possibly due to differences in regulatory context, market availability, and differences in surveillance systems.

FUNDING

World Health Organization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Smoking, distress and COVID-19 in England: Cross-sectional population surveys from 2016 to 2020

Changes in the prevalence of psychological distress among smokers during the COVID-19 pandemic in England may exacerbate existing health inequalities. This study examined the prevalence of psychological distress among smokers following the onset of the pandemic compared with previous years. Cross-sectional data came from a representative survey of smokers (18+) in England (n = 2,927) between April-July in 2016, 2017 and 2020. Logistic regressions estimated the associations between past-month distress across 2016/2017 and 2020, and age. Weighted proportions, chi-squared statistics and stratified logistic regression models were used to compare the distributions of moderate and severe distress, respectively, within socio-demographic and smoking characteristics in 2016/2017 and 2020. Between the combined April-July 2016 and 2017 sample and April-July 2020 the prevalence of moderate and severe distress among past-year smokers increased (2016/2017: moderate 20.66%, 19.02-22.43; severe 8.23%, 7.16-9.47; 2020: moderate 28.79%, 95%CI 26.11-31.60; OR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.34-3.25; severe 11.04%, 9.30-13.12; OR = 2.16, 1.13-4.07). While there was no overall evidence of an interaction between time period and age, young (16-24 years) and middle-age groups (45-54 years) may have experienced greater increases in moderate distress and older age groups (65+ years) increases in severe distress. There were increases of moderate distress among more disadvantaged social grades and both moderate and severe distress among women and those with low cigarette addiction. Between April-July 2016/2017 and April-July 2020 in England there were increases in both moderate and severe distress among smokers. The distribution of distress among smokers differed between 2016/2017 and 2020 and represents a widening of inequalities.

Characterising vaping products in the United Kingdom: an analysis of Tobacco Products Directive notification data

AIMS

To analyse content and emission data submitted by manufacturers for nicotine-containing vaping products in the United Kingdom (UK) in accordance with the European Union Tobacco Products Directive.

DESIGN

Analysis of ingredient and emission data reported for all e-liquid-containing e-cigarettes, cartridges or refill containers notified to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) from November 2016 to October 2017.

SETTING

United Kingdom CASES: A total of 40 785 e-liquid containing products.

MEASUREMENTS

The average number of ingredients per product, nicotine concentrations, frequency of occurrence ingredients and frequency and levels of chemical emissions.

FINDINGS

Reports were not standardised in relation to units of measurement or constituent nomenclature. Products listed an average of 17 ingredients and 3.3% were reported not to contain nicotine. A total of 59% of products contained <12 mg nicotine per mL, and <1% were reported to have nicotine concentrations above the legal limit of 20 mg/mL. Over 1500 ingredients were reported, and other than nicotine the most commonly reported non-flavour ingredients were propylene glycol (97% of products) and glycerol (71%). The most common flavour ingredients were ethyl butyrate (42%), vanillin (35%) and ethyl maltol (33%). The most frequently reported chemical emissions were nicotine (65%), formaldehyde (48%) and acetaldehyde (40%). The reporting of the concentration of emissions was not standardised; emissions were reported in a format allowing analysis of median estimated concentration for between 13% and 100% of products for each reported emission. Most of the frequently reported emissions, other than nicotine, were present in median estimated concentrations below 1 μg/L of inspired air, and with the exception of nicotine, acrolein and diacetyl, at median levels below European Chemicals Agency Long Term Exposure and United States (US) Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits, where these were available.

CONCLUSIONS

An analysis of reports to the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency by manufacturers of vaping products shows that (i) these products have a large range of ingredients and emissions, (ii) the reporting system is unstandardized in terms of reporting requirements, and (iii) for quantified emissions, median levels are for the most part below published safe limits for ambient air.

How a sample of English stop smoking services and vape shops adapted during the early COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic in England led to major changes in the delivery of support via stop smoking services (SSS) and to the widespread temporary closure of bricks and mortar e-cigarette retailers (vape shops herein). The impact of disruptions across the smoking cessation support landscape has not been fully documented. The purpose of this study was to capture how SSS and vape shops in England were affected and adapted their 'business as usual' during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

An online cross-sectional survey was conducted between March and July 2020. Surveys were disseminated through online networks, professional forums and contacts. Open-ended qualitative responses were coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Responses from 46 SSS and 59 vape shops were included. SSS were able to adapt during this period, e.g. offering a remote service. A high percentage (74.6%) of vape shops had to close and were unable to make changes; 71.2% reported business declining. For both vape shops and SSS qualitative data revealed practical challenges to adapting, but also new pathways to support and co-working.

CONCLUSION

The closure of vape shops appears to have most impacted smaller bricks and mortar shops affecting businesses by decline in customers and impacting staff (furlough). For those services that could stay open there may be lessons learned in how to support vulnerable and disadvantaged people who smoke by considering new pathways to support.

COVID-19: a pandemic converged with global tobacco epidemic and widespread vaping-state of the evidence

This review highlights the convergence of three global health challenges at a crossroad where the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) meets the tobacco epidemic and vaping. It begins with an overview of the current knowledge on the biology, pathophysiology and epidemiology of COVID-19. It then presents the state of smoking and vaping during the pandemic by summarizing the published data on prevalence, use patterns, product availability/accessibility, sales records and motivation to quit before and after the start of the pandemic. It highlights the state of evidence on the association of tobacco product use with COVID-19 infection and transmission rates, symptom severity and clinical outcomes. Also discussed are proposed biological mechanisms and behavioral factors that may modulate COVID-19 risk in tobacco product users. Furthermore, competing hypotheses on the protective effect of nicotine against COVID-19 as well as the claimed ‘smokers’ paradox’ are discussed. Considerations and challenges of COVID-19 vaccination in tobacco product users are underscored. Collectively, the present data show an ‘incomplete’ but rapidly shaping picture on the association of tobacco product use and COVID-19 infection, disease course and clinical outcomes. Evidence is also growing on the mechanisms by which tobacco product use may contribute to COVID-19 pathophysiology. Although we await definitive conclusions on the relative risk of COVID-19 infection in tobacco product users, compelling data confirm that many comorbidities associated with/caused by smoking predispose to COVID-19 infection, severe disease and poor prognosis. Additionally, it is becoming increasing clear that should smokers get the disease, they are more likely to have serious health consequences.

Targeted smoking cessation for dual users of combustible and electronic cigarettes: a randomised controlled trial

Background

Although many smokers use electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to quit smoking, most continue to smoke while vaping. This dual use might delay cessation and increase toxicant exposure. We aimed to test the efficacy of a self-help intervention designed to help dual users to quit smoking.

Methods

In this three-arm randomised controlled trial we recruited individuals in the USA using Facebook and multimedia advertisements. Included participants were 18 years or older, smoked at least weekly in the preceding year, and vaped at least weekly in the preceding month. We used computer generated randomisation with balanced-permuted blocks (block size 10, with 2–4-4 ratio) to allocate participants to assessment only (ASSESS group), generic smoking cessation self-help booklets (GENERIC group), or booklets targeting dual users (eTARGET group). Individuals in the generic or targeted intervention groups received monthly cessation materials for 18 months, with assessments every 3 months for 24 months. The main outcome was self-reported 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence at each assessment point. All randomly allocated participants were included in primary analyses using generalised estimating equations for each of 20 datasets created by multiple imputation. Analysis of the χ²s produced an F test. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02416011, and is now closed.

Findings

Between July 12, 2016, and June 30, 2017, we randomly assigned 2896 dual users (575 to assessment, 1154 to generic intervention, and 1167 to targeted self-help). 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence increased from 14% at 3 months to 42% at 24 months (F_7,541·7=67·1, p<0·0001) in the overall sample. Targeted self-help resulted in higher smoking abstinence than did assessment alone throughout the treatment period (F_1,973·8=10·20, p=0·0014 [α=0·017]). The generic intervention group had abstinence rates between those of the assessment and targeted groups, but did not significantly differ from either when adjusted for multiple comparisons (GENERIC vs eTARGET F_1,1102·5=1·79, p=0·18 [α=0·05]; GENERIC vs ASSESS F_1,676·7=4·29, p=0·039 [α=0·025]). Differences between study groups attenuated after the interventions ended.

Interpretation

A targeted self-help intervention with high potential for dissemination could be efficacious in promoting smoking cessation among dual users of combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

Patterns of E-Cigarette Use Among Primary Care Patients at an Urban Community Center

Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the US. The number of tobacco products has grown over the past decade. E-cigarette use has increased rapidly in recent years, but patterns and correlates of use have not been thoroughly assessed. We examined relationships among demographic factors, e-cigarette and conventional cigarette use in a large sample (N = 12,409) of adult patients at a community health center in the Northeastern US. Overall, 13% (N = 1675) of the sample reported ever using e-cigarettes. In logistic regression models, ever having used e-cigarettes was associated with younger age (ages 18-25; OR = 3.5, p < 0.001). Being transgender (OR = 1.8, p < 0.001), bisexual (OR = 1.5, p < 0.001), un-partnered (OR = 1.5, p < 0.001), having a lower income (OR = 1.6, p < 0.001) or a high BMI (OR = 1.4, p = 0.009) were associated with increased odds of use, whereas being a woman (OR = 0.7, p < 0.001) or Black/African American (OR = 0.7, p = 0.007) were associated with lower odds of use. Of the participants who reported e-cigarette use, a majority also endorsed current or former use of conventional cigarettes. Individuals who formerly used conventional cigarettes were nearly three times more likely to report daily e-cigarette use than current users. Among primary care patients at a community health center, e-cigarette use was reported by a sizeable portion of the sample. Overall, odds of use were higher in certain patient populations, and individuals who formally used cigarettes were more likely to report e-cigarette use than individuals who currently smoke, suggesting that e-cigarettes may be functioning as a cessation aid or a strategy to reduce conventional cigarette use.

Trends in use of e-cigarette device types and heated tobacco products from 2016 to 2020 in England

This study examined use trends of e-cigarette devices types, heated tobacco products (HTPs) and e-liquid nicotine concentrations in England from 2016 to 2020. Data were from a representative repeat cross-sectional survey of adults aged 16 or older. Bayesian logistic regression was used to estimate proportions and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Of 75,355 participants, 5.3% (weighted = 5.5%) were currently using e-cigarettes or HTPs, with the majority (98.7%) using e-cigarettes. Among e-cigarette users, 53.7% (CrI 52.0-55.1%) used tank devices, 23.7% (22.4-25.1%) mods, 17.3% (16.1-18.4%) pods, and 5.4% (4.7-6.2%) disposables. Tanks were the most widely used device type throughout 2016-2020. Mods were second until 2020, when pods overtook them. Among all e-cigarette/HTP users, prevalence of HTP use remains rare (3.4% in 2016 versus 4.2% in 2020), whereas JUUL use has risen from 3.4% in 2018 to 11.8% in 2020. Across all years, nicotine concentrations of ≤ 6 mg/ml were most widely (41.0%; 39.4-42.4%) and ≥ 20 mg/ml least widely used (4.1%; 3.4-4.9%). Among e-cigarette/HTP users, ex-smokers were more likely than current smokers to use mod and tank e-cigarettes, but less likely to use pods, disposables, JUUL and HTPs. In conclusion, despite growing popularity of pods and HTPs worldwide, refillable tank e-cigarettes remain the most widely used device type in England.

A Descriptive Analysis of Transitions from Smoking to Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Use: A Daily Diary Investigation

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine patterns in smoking and electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) use over an extended period of time (up to 20 weeks) in people who smoked and who had never previously made a successful quit attempt using an ENDS.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a longitudinal mixed-methods study in Dunedin, New Zealand, during 2018 and 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposively selected participants (N = 45; age (≥18 years), gender, ethnicities, cigarettes/day) who wished to quit smoking.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were provided with a second-generation ENDS device (vape pen or starter "tank" device) at the start of their quit attempt, and asked to complete smartphone-based daily diary surveys assessing smoking and ENDS use.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Sunburst plots and a sequence plot were used to describe weekly and daily patterns of smoking and ENDS use (smoking only, ENDS use only, dual use, abstinent).

RESULTS

The most frequently reported movements among participants, classified according to their study week behaviour, occurred between dual use and exclusive ENDS use (and vice versa). A smaller group reported moving from dual use to exclusive smoking (and often back to dual use), and a small number reported moving between abstinence and different ENDS and smoked tobacco usage behaviours. Data visualisations focussing on those participants who had provided data during each of weeks 9-12 indicate that only a minority reported sustained dual use; instead, most participants indicated varied smoked tobacco and ENDS use, which included periods of dual use.

CONCLUSIONS

The considerable variety observed within and between study participants suggests that high variability is typical rather than exceptional. Transitions from smoking to ENDS use may involve considerable periods of dual use, which is likely to be dynamic and potentially sustained over several months.

Electronic cigarette use (vaping) and patterns of tobacco cigarette smoking in pregnancy-evidence from a population-based maternity survey in England

OBJECTIVES

Exposure to tobacco products during pregnancy presents a potential harm to both mother and baby. This study sought to estimate the prevalence of vaping during pregnancy and to explore the factors and outcomes associated with vaping in pregnancy.

SETTING

England.

PARTICIPANTS

Women who gave birth between 15th and 28th October 2017.

METHODS

A cross-sectional population-based postal survey of maternal and infant health, the National Maternity Survey (NMS) 2018. The prevalence of vaping and patterns of cigarette smoking were estimated, and regression analysis was used to explore associations between maternal characteristics and vaping, and between vaping and birth outcomes.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Unweighted and weighted prevalence of vaping with 95% confidence intervals, and unadjusted and adjusted relative risks or difference in means for the association of participant characteristics and secondary outcomes with vaping. Secondary outcome measures were: preterm birth, gestational age at birth, birthweight, and initiation and duration of breastfeeding.

RESULTS

A total of 4,509 women responded to the survey. The prevalence of vaping in pregnancy was 2.8% (95%CI 2.4% to 3.4%). This varied according to the pattern of cigarette smoking in pregnancy: 0.3% in never-smokers; 3.3% in ex-smokers; 7.7% in pregnancy-inspired quitters; 9.5% in temporary quitters; and 17.7% in persistent smokers. Younger women, unmarried women, women with fewer years of formal education, women living with a smoker, and persistent smokers were more likely to vape, although after adjusting for pattern of cigarette smoking and maternal characteristics, persistent smoking was the only risk factor. We did not find any association between vaping and preterm birth, birthweight, or breastfeeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of vaping during pregnancy in the NMS 2018 was low overall but much higher in smokers. Smoking was the factor most strongly associated with vaping. Co-occurrence of vaping with persistent smoking has the potential to increase the harms of tobacco exposure in pregnant women and their infants.

[Smoking cessation - achievable and effective]

In hospital, effective smoking cessation can be organized through counselling, pharmacological aids and, above all, continuous care in outpatient structures following discharge. Pharmacological treatment has proven to be effective and safe with nicotine replacement therapy as well as varenicline. Counselling plus pharmacotherapy is more effective in combination than either therapy is on its own. To better implement structures medical societies in Germany are seeking adequate funding e. g. in the DRG system for hospitalised patients.There are obvious and relevant benefits in smoking cessation. Not only for the main tobacco-related diseases such as coronary heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), positive effects of quitting on morbidity and mortality have been confirmed by high-quality meta-analyses. Furthermore, quality of life is increasing following cessation. Presently, smoking is found to be a significant risk factor for severe disease and mortality following coronavirus infection.Do e-cigarettes offer an alternative in smoking cessation? No. Animal and human data are suggesting toxic effects especially following longer use. The long-term effectiveness of e-cigarettes in tobacco cessation is still uncertain and epidemiologic data clearly point toward ineffectiveness. Furthermore, dual use with potentiation of the toxic effects is common. Therefore, e-cigarettes cannot be recommended for tobacco cessation.

Effectiveness of Non-Nicotinic E-Cigarettes to Reduce Cue- and Abstinence-Induced Cigarette Craving in Non-Treatment Seeking Daily Dependent Smokers

RATIONALE

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are potential tools for smoking cessation because they deliver nicotine and simulate smoking behaviors. The contribution of sensorimotor versus pharmacological substitution is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether non-nicotinic e-cigarettes, used alone or with nicotine lozenges, can attenuate cigarette craving following visual cue presentation or acute (3 h post ad-lib use) abstinence in dependent daily smokers.

METHODS

Following overnight (12 hours) abstinence, 41 daily smokers were exposed to 4 experimental conditions on separate days: (i) tobacco cigarettes (CIG); (ii) non-nicotinic e-cigarettes with placebo lozenges (EPL); (iii) non-nicotinic e-cigarettes with 4 mg nicotine lozenge (ENL); and (iv) 4 mg nicotine lozenge (NL). Cigarette craving was assessed following presentation of neutral and smoking cues at various time points using the Brief Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU-B) and visual analog scales (VAS).

RESULTS

All experimental conditions significantly reduced participants' baseline overnight abstinence cigarette craving. ENLs and NLs attenuated smoking-cue-induced cravings to a greater extent than CIGs, where cravings were significantly higher with CIGs compared to ENLs [mean difference (MD) ± standard error (SE) in QSU-B = 3.2 ± 0.84, P = 0.002; VAS = 12.7 ± 2.7, P < 0.0005] and NLs [MD ± SE in QSU-B = 2.7 ± 0.92, P = 0.031; VAS = 8.1 ± 2.3, P = 0.005]. Craving responses to cues after 3 h were higher after smoking CIGs compared to ENLs [MD ± SE in QSU-B = 3.9 ± 1.4, P = 0.047; VAS = 14.1 ± 3.6, P = 0.002] and NLs [MD ± SE in QSU-B = 3.2 ± 1.1, P = 0.046; VAS = 9.7 ± 3.1, P = 0.017].

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioral simulation of smoking with or without nicotine reduces nicotine craving. Compared to cigarettes, ENL with NL or NL alone attenuates cigarette craving over time. Future clinical trials should evaluate the combination of ENL and NL as a method for smoking reduction or cessation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02108626.

The consequential impact of JUUL on youth vaping and the landscape of tobacco products: The state of play in the COVID-19 era

JUUL is a groundbreaking electronic cigarette (e-cig) and the preeminent vaping product on the market. We present an overview of the rapid and spectacular rise of JUUL and its remarkable fall within the timespan of 2015 - 2020. We highlight JUUL's entering the market in June 2015, becoming the industry leader in mid 2017, and experiencing a litany of setbacks by late 2019 through to early 2020. We address the role played by JUUL in the ongoing epidemic of youth vaping. We also feature competing views on the public health impact of JUUL use (in particular), and e-cig vaping (in general). We further highlight the latest trends in youth vaping and sales records for JUUL and tobacco cigarettes. In view of the ongoing pandemic of COVID-19, we briefly summarize the existing evidence on the relationship between vaping and smoking and the prevalence, disease course, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19.

Tobacco Harm Reduction as a Path to Restore Trust in Tobacco Control

The controversy of tobacco harm reduction in the United States persists despite evidence that an important audience of tobacco prevention and control, i.e., the people who use or are likely to use nicotine and tobacco products, are engaging in practices that may be considered harm reduction. Despite this, a significant proportion of the US tobacco control and prevention field continues to be guided by a precept that there is "no safe tobacco," therefore failing to acknowledge practices that may be used to reduce the harms associated with consuming combustible forms of nicotine and tobacco. In this commentary, we argue that ignoring the potential benefits of harm reduction strategies may unintentionally lead to an erosion of trust in tobacco control among some members of the public. Trust in tobacco control as an institution is crucial for the success of tobacco control efforts. To ensure trust, we must return to our basic principles of doing no harm, developing programs that are responsive to people's experiences, and providing resources in assisting people to reduce the harms that may be associated with practices, such as smoking, which adversely affect health. Only by respecting an individual's priorities can we cultivate trust and develop tobacco prevention efforts that are grounded in the realities of people's lives and responsive to their needs.

Implementation of e-cigarette regulation through the EU Tobacco Products Directive (2016) in Wales, Scotland and England from the perspectives of stakeholders involved in policy introduction and enforcement

INTRODUCTION

From May 2016, the European Union introduced the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) regulations, which included restrictions to advertising and new safety and labeling standards for e-cigarette products. This represented the first supranational policy regulating e-cigarette sales and marketing. This study explores perceptions of TPD and its implementation in Wales, Scotland and England, from perspectives of stakeholders involved in tobacco and e-cigarette policy and implementation in each nation.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed with 12 stakeholders from government and third sector organizations in the UK involved in tobacco control policy-making processes, and Trading Standards Officers from 13 UK local authorities. Data were analyzed thematically and a sub-sample double-coded.

RESULTS

Stakeholders held varying views of e-cigarettes, recognizing potential benefits and harms of both the products and the new policy actions. Nevertheless, most perceived TPD to be a positive step in introducing regulation for e-cigarettes. Compliance was perceived as high across nations, although stakeholders highlighted product adaptations to circumvent restrictions, and absence of controls on non-nicotine products. Budgetary and staffing limitations also meant that capacity to communicate new measures, and enforce change, was limited. This led to a gap occupied by industry representatives, who played a substantial role in preparing retailers for adoption of new measures.

CONCLUSIONS

TPD policy roll-out was largely perceived positively and as having been effectively implemented. However, contribution of industry to communication of new measures and absence of resourcing for effective communication perhaps introduced widespread innovations within regulations. While largely viewed positively, some refinements to device regulations were proposed.

Effects of Providing Tailored Information About e-Cigarettes in a Web-Based Smoking Cessation Intervention: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

There is an ongoing debate whether electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) should be advocated for smoking cessation. Because of this uncertainty, information about the use of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation is usually not provided in governmental smoking cessation communications. However, there is an information need among smokers because despite this uncertainty, e-cigarettes are used by many smokers to reduce and quit tobacco smoking.

Objective

The aim of this study is to describe the protocol of a randomized controlled trial that assesses the effect of providing tailored information about e-cigarettes compared to not providing this information on determinants of decision making and smoking reduction and abstinence. This information is provided in the context of a digital smoking cessation intervention.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial with a 6-month follow-up period will be conducted among adult smokers motivated to quit smoking within 5 years. Participants will be 1:1 randomized into either the intervention condition or control condition. In this trial, which is grounded on the I-Change model, participants in both conditions will receive tailored feedback on attitude, social influence, preparatory plans, self-efficacy, and coping plans. Information on 6 clusters of smoking cessation methods (face-to-face counselling, eHealth interventions, telephone counselling, group-based programs, nicotine replacement therapy, and prescription medication) will be provided in both conditions. Smokers in the intervention condition will also receive detailed tailored information on e-cigarettes, while smokers in the control condition will not receive this information. The primary outcome measure will be the number of tobacco cigarettes smoked in the past 7 days. Secondary outcome measures will include 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence, 7-day point prevalence e-cigarette abstinence, and determinants of decision making (ie, knowledge and attitude regarding e-cigarettes). All outcomes will be self-assessed through web-based questionnaires.

Results

This project is supported by a research grant of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu). Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Review Committee Health, Medicine and Life Sciences at Maastricht University (FHML-REC/2019/072). Recruitment began in March 2020 and was completed by July 2020. We enrolled 492 smokers in this study. The results are expected to be published in June 2021.

Conclusions

The experimental design of this study allows conclusions to be formed regarding the effects of tailored information about e-cigarettes on decision making and smoking behavior. Our findings can inform the development of future smoking cessation interventions.

Trial Registration

Dutch Trial Register Trial NL8330; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8330

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/27088

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.

E-Cigarette Flavors and Frequency of E-Cigarette Use among Adult Dual Users Who Attempt to Quit Cigarette Smoking in the United States: Longitudinal Findings from the PATH Study 2015/16-2016/17

Potential mechanisms by which e-cigarette use may relate to combustible cigarette smoking cessation are not well-understood. We used U.S. nationally representative data to prospectively evaluate the relationship between e-cigarette flavor use and frequency of e-cigarette use among adult cigarette/e-cigarette dual users who attempted to quit smoking cigarettes. Analyses used Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study data from adult dual users (2015/16) who attempted to quit smoking between 2015/16 and 2016/17 (Wave 3-Wave 4, n = 685, including those who did/did not quit by 2016/17). E-cigarette flavor use (usual/last flavor, past 30-day flavor; assessed in 2015/16) was categorized into Only tobacco; Only menthol/mint; Only non-tobacco, non-menthol/mint; and Any combination of tobacco, menthol/mint, other flavor(s). The key outcome, evaluated at follow-up in 2016/17, was frequent e-cigarette use, which was defined as use on 20+ of past 30 days. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between e-cigarette flavor use in 2015/16 and frequent e-cigarette use at follow-up in 2016/17. Dual users who attempted to quit smoking had greater odds of frequent e-cigarette use at follow-up when they used only non-tobacco, non-menthol/mint flavor than when they used only tobacco flavor as their regular/last e-cigarette flavor (OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1-3.4); findings were no longer significant when adjusted for factors including e-cigarette device type (AOR = 1.4, 95% CI: 0.7-2.8). Past 30-day e-cigarette flavor use results were generally similar, although frequent e-cigarette use at follow-up was highest among those who used any combination of tobacco, menthol/mint, or other flavors. Findings indicate that e-cigarette flavor use among dual users who attempt to quit smoking may be related to e-cigarette use frequency overall, which may indicate a mechanism underlying findings for e-cigarette use and smoking cessation. Further longitudinal research may help to disentangle how e-cigarette characteristics uniquely impact e-cigarette use frequency and smoking cessation/sustained use.

Do e-cigarette sales reduce the demand for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products in the US? Evidence from the retail sales data

Despite mixed evidence, many smokers use e-cigarettes to quit smoking. With the substantial growth of e-cigarette sales in recent years, it is important to understand how it may affect FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products in the US. This study aims to investigate the impact of e-cigarette prices and TV advertising on the demand for NRT products. Quarterly (2010 Q1-2017 Q4) retail sales and price data of e-cigarettes and NRT gum and patch, compiled from Nielsen retail store scanner database, were linked with contemporaneous quarterly television rating data for e-cigarettes and NRT products, compiled from Kantar Media, using state and county identifier. Market, year, and quarter fixed effects models were used to estimate the impact of NRT price and TV advertising, as well as e-cigarette price and TV advertising, on the demand for NRT gum and patch. NRT gum price elasticity was estimated to be -0.91. Higher patch price was found to decrease gum sales (cross-price elasticity -0.96). Higher e-cigarette prices were found to decrease NRT gum sales. Higher cigarette prices were found to increase NRT gum sales. NRT patch price elasticity was estimated to be -2.05. Higher gum price was found to increase patch sales (cross-price elasticity 0.97). E-cigarette TV advertisement was positively associated with NRT gum sales. NRT gum appeared to be complements for e-cigarettes. Recent growth in e-cigarette sales may have increased the demand for NRT gum. More studies are needed to understand the differential behavioral patterns of NRT gum users and NRT path users.

Interest in Quitting e-Cigarettes Among Adult e-Cigarette Users With and Without Cigarette Smoking History

This survey study compares the level of interest in quitting e-cigarettes among adults who have a cigarette smoking history vs those who do not.

Electronic Cigarettes and Oral Health

Novel nicotine products, particularly electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), have become increasingly popular over the past decade. E-cigarettes are sometimes regarded as a less harmful alternative to tobacco smoking, and there is some evidence of their potential role as a smoking cessation aid. However, there are concerns about their health consequences, particularly in users who are not tobacco smokers, and also when used long term. Given the mode of delivery of these products, there is potential for oral health consequences. Over the past few years, there have been an increasing number of studies conducted to explore their oral health effects. In vitro studies have reported a range of cellular effects, but these are much less pronounced than those resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke. Microbiological studies have indicated that e-cigarette users have a distinct microbiome, and there is some indication this may be more pathogenic compared to nonusers. Evidence of oral health effects from clinical trials is still limited, and most studies to date have been small in scale and usually cross-sectional in design. Epidemiological studies highlight concerns over oral dryness, irritation, and gingival diseases. Interpreting data from e-cigarette studies is challenging, given the different populations that have been investigated and the continual emergence of new products. Overall, studies reveal potential oral health harms, underscoring the importance of efforts to reduce use in nonsmokers. However, in smokers who are using e-cigarettes as an aid to help them quit, the benefits of quitting tobacco smoking may outweigh any negative oral health impacts of e-cigarette use, particularly in the short term. Future research is needed to understand the clinical significance of some of the biological changes observed by following different cohorts of users longitudinally in carefully designed clinical studies and pragmatic trials supported by high-quality in vitro studies.

Critical appraisal of the European Union Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) Preliminary Opinion on electronic cigarettes

BACKGROUND

In preparation for the 2021 revision of the European Union Tobacco Products Directive, the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) has posted its Preliminary Opinion on Electronic Cigarettes. They concluded that e-cigarettes only achieve a sub-optimal level of protection of human health. In this paper, we provide evidence that the Opinion's conclusions are not adequately backed up by scientific evidence and did not discuss the potential health benefits of using alternative combustion-free nicotine-containing products as substitute for tobacco cigarettes.

METHODS

Searches for articles were conducted in PubMed and by citation chasing in Google Scholar. Articles were also retrieved with a review of references in major publications. Primary data from World Health Organization surveys, the conclusions of reviews, and peer-reviewed non-industry studies were cited to address errors and omissions identified in the Opinion.

RESULTS

The Opinion omitted reporting on the individual and population health benefits of the substitution of e-cigarettes (ENDS) for cigarette smoking. Alternative hypotheses to the gateway theory were not evaluated. Its assessment of cardiovascular risk is contradicted by numerous reviews. It cites ever-use data that do not represent current patterns of use. It did not report non-nicotine use. It presented erroneous statements on trends in ENDS prevalence. It over-emphasized the role of flavours in youth ENDS initiation. It did not discuss cessation in sufficient length.

CONCLUSIONS

For the delivery of a robust and comprehensive final report, the members of the Working Group of the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks will need to consider (1) the potential health benefits of ENDS substitution for cigarette smoking, (2) alternative hypotheses and contradictory studies on the gateway effect, (3) its assessment of cardiovascular risk, (4) the measurements of frequency of use, (5) non-nicotine use, (6) the role of flavours, and (7) a fulsome discussion of cessation.

Methods Used in Smoking Cessation and Reduction Attempts: Findings from Help-Seeking Smokers

In addition to traditional smoking cessation methods like nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), new methods such as mobile applications and e-cigarettes have been added to the toolbox. The purpose of this study was to examine which methods smokers currently use in quit or reduction attempts and map characteristics of users of the various methods. In this study, participants were smokers who visited a website or called a quit line for smoking cessation and who were currently in quit or reduction attempts (N = 740). Data were collected in Norway in 2013-2017 through a web survey. Most smokers were currently trying to quit, and the most frequently used methods were a smoking cessation app for mobile phones, nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), and e-cigarettes. Logistic regression analyses identified older daily smokers with high cigarette consumption as NRT users, while the users of a cessation app were younger females. The use of e-cigarettes was associated with older, low educated smokers with low cigarette consumption. The use of the mobile phone app was associated with having made several recent quit attempts. The study provides insight into help-seeking smokers' preferences for smoking cessation methods and user characteristics. This knowledge is relevant for further work in smoking cessation planning and policies.

A screening approach for the evaluation of tobacco-free 'modern oral' nicotine products using Real Time Cell Analysis

In many regulated industries there is an increasing pressure to provide timely and robust risk assessment data to support product launches. Real-time cell analysis (RTCA) is a tool that allows for the fast and relatively labour-free cytotoxic assessment of test compounds, compared to traditional methods. Here, we propose an application for the RTCA platform to provide a screening approach, to evaluate the cytotoxic potential of tobacco-free nicotine pouches, also termed modern oral product (MOP), to determine the contribution of differing nicotine strengths (4-11 mg) and a range of available flavour types from multiple markets, on overall product toxicity. Aqueous extracts were prepared for all products using 1 pouch in 20 mL cell culture media and applied to the cell system for 24 h. Test extract nicotine concentrations reflected the increases in product nicotine strength; however, these changes were not present in the same magnitude in the cytotoxicity data obtained from both primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGF) and an NCI-H292 human bronchial epithelial continuous cell line. Furthermore, across the range of flavours and product nicotine strengths tested, H292 cells whilst not the target organ for oral product use, accurately predicted the results seen in HGFs and could be considered a useful surrogate for fast screening studies. H292 cells are more easily cultured and for longer periods, offering a more compatible test system. In conclusion, the data demonstrate the utility of the RTCA platform for the quick assessment of a large range of product variants. Furthermore, for a cytotoxicity measure with this test product, the simple H292 cell line can predict outcomes in the more complex HGF and provide useful pre-clinical cytotoxicity screening data to inform the risk assessment of MOPs and the relative contribution of flavourings, nicotine and other components.

Multi-endpoint analysis of human 3D airway epithelium following repeated exposure to whole electronic vapor product aerosol or cigarette smoke

Smoking is a cause of serious diseases in smokers including chronic respiratory diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the tobacco harm reduction (THR) potential of an electronic vapor product (EVP, myblu™) compared to a Kentucky Reference Cigarette (3R4F), and assessed endpoints related to chronic respiratory diseases. Endpoints included: cytotoxicity, barrier integrity (TEER), cilia function, immunohistochemistry, and pro-inflammatory markers. In order to more closely represent the user exposure scenario, we have employed the in vitro 3D organotypic model of human airway epithelium (MucilAir™, Epithelix) for respiratory assessment. The model was repeatedly exposed to either whole aerosol of the EVP, or whole 3R4F smoke, at the air liquid interface (ALI), for 4 weeks to either 30, 60 or 90 puffs on 3-exposure-per-week basis. 3R4F smoke generation used the ISO 20778:2018 regime and EVP aerosol used the ISO 20768:2018 vaping regime. Exposure to undiluted whole EVP aerosol did not trigger any significant changes in the level of pro-inflammatory mediators, cilia beating function, barrier integrity and cytotoxicity when compared with air controls. In contrast, exposure to diluted (1:17) whole cigarette smoke caused significant changes to all the endpoints mentioned above. To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the effects of repeated whole cigarette smoke and whole EVP aerosol exposure to a 3D lung model at the ALI. Our results add to the growing body of scientific literature supporting the THR potential of EVPs relative to combustible cigarettes and the applicability of the 3D lung models in human-relevant product risk assessments.

Interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by dental professionals

BACKGROUND

Dental professionals are well placed to help their patients stop using tobacco products. Large proportions of the population visit the dentist regularly. In addition, the adverse effects of tobacco use on oral health provide a context that dental professionals can use to motivate a quit attempt.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, adverse events and oral health effects of tobacco cessation interventions offered by dental professionals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register up to February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by dental professionals in the dental practice or community setting, with at least six months of follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and extracted data from included trials. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from all tobacco use (e.g. cigarettes, smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. Individual study effects and pooled effects were summarised as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models to combine studies where appropriate. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I² statistic. We summarised secondary outcomes narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty clinical trials involving 14,897 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Sixteen studies assessed the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco-use cessation in dental clinics and four assessed this in community (school or college) settings. Five studies included only smokeless tobacco users, and the remaining studies included either smoked tobacco users only, or a combination of both smoked and smokeless tobacco users. All studies employed behavioural interventions, with four offering nicotine treatment (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or e-cigarettes) as part of the intervention. We judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, one to be at unclear risk of bias, and the remaining 16 studies to be at high risk of bias. Compared with usual care, brief advice, very brief advice, or less active treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence of benefit from behavioural support provided by dental professionals, comprising either one session (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.41; I² = 66%; four studies, n = 6328), or more than one session (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.11; I² = 61%; seven studies, n = 2639), on abstinence from tobacco use at least six months from baseline. We found moderate-certainty evidence of benefit from behavioural interventions provided by dental professionals combined with the provision of NRT or e-cigarettes, compared with no intervention, usual care, brief, or very brief advice only (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.82; I² = 0%; four studies, n = 1221). We did not detect a benefit from multiple-session behavioural support provided by dental professionals delivered in a high school or college, instead of a dental setting (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65; I² = 83%; three studies, n = 1020; very low-certainty evidence). Only one study reported adverse events or oral health outcomes, making it difficult to draw any conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-certainty evidence that quit rates increase when dental professionals offer behavioural support to promote tobacco cessation. There is moderate-certainty evidence that tobacco abstinence rates increase in cigarette smokers if dental professionals offer behavioural support combined with pharmacotherapy. Further evidence is required to be certain of the size of the benefit and whether adding pharmacological interventions is more effective than behavioural support alone. Future studies should use biochemical validation of abstinence so as to preclude the risk of detection bias. There is insufficient evidence on whether these interventions lead to adverse effects, but no reasons to suspect that these effects would be specific to interventions delivered by dental professionals. There was insufficient evidence that interventions affected oral health.

Smoking cessation advice and quit attempts in South Africa between 2007 and 2017: A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to determine trends in receiving quit advice from healthcare professionals among current smokers in South Africa, pre- and post-adoption of Article 14 guidelines of the WHO FCTC in 2010, and to determine the association between quit advice, e-cigarette use and quit attempt.

METHODS

This study was a secondary data analysis involving 2206 ever-smokers aged ≥16 years who participated in the South African Social Attitude Surveys conducted in 2007, 2010 and 2017. Data included participants' sociodemographics, tobacco, and/or e-cigarette use (for years 2010 and 2017 only), exposure to others' smoking at home and/or work or public places, quit advice, and quit attempts. Analyses included chi-squared test and logistic regression.

RESULTS

The mean cigarettes smoked per day, the proportions of smokers offered quit advice, planning to quit and who made a quit attempt did not change significantly between 2007 and 2017 (p=0.67, p=0.70, p=0.09 and p=0.40, respectively). However, there was a marginally significant increase in e-cigarette uptake between 2010 and 2017 (p=0.05). In a bivariate analysis, quit advice was significantly associated with making a quit attempt across all survey years. In the final multivariable-adjusted regression model, having received a quit advice (OR=1.967; 95% CI: 1.255-3.083) compared to not, and being Colored/mixed race (OR=0.467; 95% CI: 0.298-0.732) compared to self-identifying as Black African, remained independently associated with making a quit attempt.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for marginally increased e-cigarette use, there was no significant change in smoking or quitting behavior in South Africa post-adoption of Article 14 guidelines. The study findings highlight the importance of quit advice in promoting quitting behavior and suggest the need to scale it up in South Africa.

The effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation and cigarette smoking initiation: An evidence-based rapid review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The contribution made by e-cigarettes to smoking cessation continues to be controversial. Reports suggest that teenagers are becoming increasingly addicted to e-cigarettes and that e-cigarette use in adolescents is associated with subsequent cigarette smoking.

METHODS

Systematic searches of eleven databases were conducted (January 2015 to June 2020). Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing e-cigarettes with placebo e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or no e-cigarette use were included. The two primary outcomes were smoking cessation among smokers and smoking initiation among non-smoking teenagers. The secondary outcome was adverse events. Data were synthesized using risk ratio (RR) or adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Six systematic reviews, 5 RCTs and 24 cohort studies were identified. For smoking cessation, findings from 4 systematic reviews indicated that e-cigarettes contributed to cessation while one found the opposite. Meta-analysis of 5 RCTs suggested that e-cigarettes were superior to NRT or placebo for smoking cessation (RR=1.55; 95% CI: 1.00–2.40; I²=57.6%; low certainty; 5 trials, n=4025). Evidence from 9 cohort studies showed that e-cigarette use was not associated with cessation (AOR=1.16; 95% CI: 0.88–1.54; I²=69.0%; n=22220). Subgroup analysis suggested that intensive e-cigarette use may be associated with cessation. In terms of smoking initiation, adolescents who ever used e-cigarettes had a greater risk for smoking initiation than non-users (AOR=2.91; 95% CI: 2.61–3.23; I²=61.0%; 15 trials, n=68943), the findings were consistent with one included systematic review. No serious adverse events were reported in the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Low certainty evidence suggests that e-cigarettes appear to be potentially effective for smoking cessation. The use of e-cigarettes in adolescents may be associated with smoking initiation. No serious adverse events were reported.

A Qualitative Study of Factors Influencing Adherence among Pregnant Women Taking Part in a Trial of E-Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation

Use of e-cigarettes (vaping) has potential to help pregnant women stop smoking. This study explored factors influencing adherence among participants in the vaping arm of the first trial of vaping for smoking cessation in pregnancy. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews (n = 28) with women at three-months postpartum. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by the Theoretical-Domains Framework, Necessity-Concerns Framework and Perceptions and Practicalities Approach. Interviewees generally reported high levels of vaping. We found that: (1) intervention adherence was driven by four necessity beliefs-stopping smoking for the baby, and vaping for harm reduction, smoking cessation or as a last resort; (2) necessity beliefs outweighed vaping concerns, such as dependence and safety; (3) adherence was linked to four practicalities themes, acting as barriers and facilitators to vaping-device and e-liquid perceptions, resources and support, whether vaping became habitual, and social and environmental factors; and (4) intentional non-adherence was rare; unintentional non-adherence was due to device failures, forgetting to vape, and personal circumstances and stress. Pregnant smokers provided with e-cigarettes, and with generally high levels of vaping, had positive beliefs about the necessity of vaping for smoking cessation which outweighed concerns about vaping. Non-adherence was mainly due to unintentional factors.

Content Analysis of U.S. Newspaper Coverage of Causes and Solutions to Vaping-Associated Lung Injury

In 2019, an outbreak of vaping-associated lung injury (also known as "EVALI") spread throughout the U.S., linked to use of illicit THC cartridges. This paper examines U.S. newspaper coverage on the causes and solutions to EVALI. Methods: A content analysis of 417 articles from April to December 2019 from two national newspapers, one regional newspaper, and the Associated Press was conducted. Articles were coded for information about EVALI causes, mentions of the brand Dank Vapes, calls for individuals take a specific action to prevent harm, and mentions of policy actions to address vaping. Mentions of increasing youth vaping and JUUL were also coded. Results: Most articles (77%) provided an update on the number of EVALI cases and/or deaths. Fewer described EVALI symptoms (20%) or mentioned vaping cessation resources available to the public (2%). Almost half of articles also mentioned youth vaping as a concern (49%). Dank Vapes was mentioned rarely (4%) compared to JUUL (39%). After CDC recommendations changed to no longer recommend avoiding all vaping products, news articles became significantly less likely to mention nicotine products as a cause of EVALI or suggest that individuals cease all vaping. While policy was generally not articulated as a solution to EVALI, banning or limiting flavored nicotine vaping products were the most common policy actions mentioned. Conclusions/Importance: The discussions of causes of and solutions to EVALI were often intertwined with coverage of youth vaping, potentially failing to convey a clear sense of how the public should respond to the EVALI outbreak.

Reasons why Chinese smokers prefer not to use electronic cigarettes

INTRODUCTION

China is the world’s largest e-cigarette manufacturer. It also has the world’s largest smoking population. Although smoking is strongly associated with e-cigarette use, the prevalence of e-cigarette use is low among Chinese smokers compared with smokers in countries such as the US and UK. This study aims to explore the reasons why Chinese smokers prefer not to use e-cigarettes.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data from the Tobacco Questions for Surveys (TQS) conducted in four large Chinese cities (Chengdu, Wuhan, Xiamen, and Xi’an) in 2017–2018 were analyzed. A multi-stage cluster sampling approach was applied to select a representative sample of adults for each city. Weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for self-reported reasons why smokers in China had never tried e-cigarettes, in total and by demographic characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the adjusted associations between the top reasons why smokers never tried e-cigarettes and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

RESULTS

The top three reasons that Chinese adult smokers reported for never having tried e-cigarettes were: ‘I do not want to quit smoking’ (35.35%), ‘I do not think they would help me quit or cut down’ (24.31%), and ‘I am not addicted to smoking and don't need help to quit’ (14.93%). Other prominent reasons included: ‘I am concerned they are not safe enough’, and ‘I do not want to substitute one addiction for another’. Generally, there were no statistically significant associations between reasons why smokers never tried e-cigarettes and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that many Chinese smokers associate e-cigarette use with smoking cessation. Continued monitoring of smokers’ views, beliefs, and risk perceptions regarding e-cigarettes is warranted. Health education campaigns communicating the risks of e-cigarettes are also needed.

Food Addiction and Tobacco Use Disorder: Common Liability and Shared Mechanisms

As food addiction is being more commonly recognized within the scientific community, parallels can be drawn between it and other addictive substance use disorders, including tobacco use disorder. Given that both unhealthy diets and smoking are leading risk factors for disability and death, a greater understanding of how food addiction and tobacco use disorder overlap with one another is necessary. This narrative review aimed to highlight literature that investigated prevalence, biology, psychology, and treatment options of food addiction and tobacco use disorder. Published studies up to August 2020 and written in English were included. Using a biopsychosocial lens, each disorder was assessed together and separately, as there is emerging evidence that the two disorders can develop concurrently or sequentially within individuals. Commonalities include but are not limited to the dopaminergic neurocircuitry, gut microbiota, childhood adversity, and attachment insecurity. In addition, the authors conducted a feasibility study with the purpose of examining the association between food addiction symptoms and tobacco use disorder among individuals seeking tobacco use disorder treatment. To inform future treatment approaches, more research is necessary to identify and understand the overlap between the two disorders.

[Smoking Cessation with E-Cigarettes? - Ad Hoc Statement of the German Respiratory Society (DGP)]

The German Respiratory Society (DGP) turns against the e-cigarette as a means for harm reduction because of potential health risk and dangers to young people. The aerosol of e-cigarettes contains toxic ingredients that have been shown to be damaging to the lungs, the cardiovascular system and the immune system and are potentially carcinogenic. Studies on e-cigarettes as a means of smoking cessation are not very convincing, in order to favor e-cigarettes over nicotine replacement therapy, which have been tried and tested for many years, or other drugs that reduce the desire to smoke.

Interventions to reduce tobacco use in people experiencing homelessness

BACKGROUND

Populations experiencing homelessness have high rates of tobacco use and experience substantial barriers to cessation. Tobacco-caused conditions are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among people experiencing homelessness, highlighting an urgent need for interventions to reduce the burden of tobacco use in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether interventions designed to improve access to tobacco cessation interventions for adults experiencing homelessness lead to increased numbers engaging in or receiving treatment, and whether interventions designed to help adults experiencing homelessness to quit tobacco lead to increased tobacco abstinence. To also assess whether tobacco cessation interventions for adults experiencing homelessness affect substance use and mental health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies using the terms: un-housed*, homeless*, housing instability, smoking cessation, tobacco use disorder, smokeless tobacco. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 06 January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that recruited people experiencing homelessness who used tobacco, and investigated interventions focused on the following: 1) improving access to relevant support services; 2) increasing motivation to quit tobacco use; 3) helping people to achieve abstinence, including but not limited to behavioral support, tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies, contingency management, and text- or app-based interventions; or 4) encouraging transitions to long-term nicotine use that did not involve tobacco. Eligible comparators included no intervention, usual care (as defined by the studies), or another form of active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Tobacco cessation was measured at the longest time point for each study, on an intention-to-treat basis, using the most rigorous definition available. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (contingent reinforcement in addition to usual smoking cessation care; more versus less intensive smoking cessation interventions; and multi-issue support versus smoking cessation support only), and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, effects on mental and substance-use severity, and meta-analyzed these outcomes where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 studies involving 1634 participants who smoked combustible tobacco at enrolment. One of the studies was ongoing. Most of the trials included participants who were recruited from community-based sites such as shelters, and three included participants who were recruited from clinics. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains. We identified low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that contingent reinforcement (rewards for successful smoking cessation) plus usual smoking cessation care was not more effective than usual care alone in promoting abstinence (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.77; 1 trial, 70 participants). We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, that more intensive behavioral smoking cessation support was more effective than brief intervention in promoting abstinence at six-month follow-up (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.69; 3 trials, 657 participants; I² = 0%). There was low-certainty evidence, limited by bias and imprecision, that multi-issue support (cessation support that also encompassed help to deal with other challenges or addictions) was not superior to targeted smoking cessation support in promoting abstinence (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.61; 2 trials, 146 participants; I² = 25%). More data on these types of interventions are likely to change our interpretation of these data. Single studies that examined the effects of text-messaging support, e-cigarettes, or cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation provided inconclusive results. Data on secondary outcomes, including mental health and substance use severity, were too sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions on whether there were clinically-relevant differences. We did not identify any studies that explicitly assessed interventions to increase access to tobacco cessation care; we were therefore unable to assess our secondary outcome 'number of participants receiving treatment'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of any tobacco cessation interventions specifically in people experiencing homelessness. Although there was some evidence to suggest a modest benefit of more intensive behavioral smoking cessation interventions when compared to less intensive interventions, our certainty in this evidence was very low, meaning that further research could either strengthen or weaken this effect. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether the provision of tobacco cessation support and its effects on quit attempts has any effect on the mental health or other substance-use outcomes of people experiencing homelessness. Although there is no reason to believe that standard tobacco cessation treatments work any differently in people experiencing homelessness than in the general population, these findings highlight a need for high-quality studies that address additional ways to engage and support people experiencing homelessness, in the context of the daily challenges they face. These studies should have adequate power and put effort into retaining participants for long-term follow-up of at least six months. Studies should also explore interventions that increase access to cessation services, and address the social and environmental influences of tobacco use among people experiencing homelessness. Finally, studies should explore the impact of tobacco cessation on mental health and substance-use outcomes.

What Motivates Smokers to Switch to ENDS? A Qualitative Study of Perceptions and Use

Switching completely from cigarettes to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) may reduce health risks for addicted smokers. This paper provides information about perceptions and other factors that may influence smokers’ ENDS use and substitution for cigarettes. We conducted 12 online focus groups (N = 61) among smokers who had never tried using ENDS (Never Users, N = 11), currently used both cigarettes and ENDS (Dual Users, N = 21), used but discontinued ENDS (Rejectors, N = 14), and switched completely to ENDS use (Switchers, N = 15). Thematic analysis was used to interpret the transcripts. Participants described initial interest in trying ENDS in hopes of quitting smoking and because of convenience (i.e., due to rules, regulations, or social norms). Risk perceptions and higher prices relative to cigarettes were reported as disadvantages of ENDS that discouraged initiation. Dual Users and Rejectors reported product problems (e.g., products breaking) and dissatisfaction (i.e., inability to satisfy cravings for cigarettes) as factors that lowered their substitutability for cigarettes or led to discontinuing ENDS use. Switchers indicated that satisfaction, lack of product problems, and perceived safety facilitated successfully switching from cigarette smoking to exclusive ENDS use. However, Switchers reported trying many products before they found ones that satisfied their needs. We recommend that policymakers consider the potential impact of tobacco control policies on smokers’ motivation and ability to switch completely from cigarettes to ENDS.