Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction

Protocol for the "magnitude of cigarette substitution after initiation of e-cigarettes and its impact on biomarkers of exposure and potential harm in dual users" (MAGNIFICAT) study

Introduction

Many smokers who use e-cigarettes (ECs) to quit continue smoking alongside vaping. The impact on health among individuals who simultaneously smoke conventional cigarettes (CCs) and use ECs remains unclear. The varying patterns of dual use present differing levels of overall toxin exposure and relative risks concerning smoking-related diseases. Understanding these complexities is vital to assessing the implications for human health.

Objective

Herein we describe a protocol designed to analyze the impact of different level of substituting CCs with ECs on exposure to toxicants. We'll use biomarkers to measure this exposure and assess harm reduction in dual users through clinical endpoints, harm-related biomarkers, and behavioral correlations. We expect to observe progressive changes with varying patterns of dual use.

Methods and analyses

For this purpose, we planned to recruit a group of 250 smokers who will be asked to reduce their CC consumption by adopting ECs (intervention group). A separate group of 50 smokers will continue to smoke CC (reference group). Study groups will be followed up for 6 months during which biospecimens will be collected for biomarker analyses, and clinical endpoints will be assessed. The trial is structured to characterize subjects' usage patterns over time using robust biomarkers of exposure and a standardized mobile phone application to facilitate the precise categorization of dual users along the risk continuum based on their usage behaviors. Subject recruitment will start in February 2024 and enrolment is expected to be completed by August 2024. Results will be reported early in 2025. Study findings may provide valuable insights into health benefits or risks associated with varying patterns of dual use.

Ethics and dissemination

The study protocol and informed consent forms will be approved by the local Ethical Review Boards. Study results will be disseminated through articles published in reputable, peer-reviewed, open access, scientific journals, presentations at conferences, and the University website.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Past, present and future of living systematic review: a bibliometrics analysis

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the concept of living systematic review (LSR) has attracted the attention of many scholars and institutions. A growing number of studies have been conducted based on LSR methodology, but their focus direction is unclear. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of existing LSR-related studies and to analyse their whole picture and future trends with bibliometrics.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was used to construct a representative dataset of LSRs up to October 2021. GraphPad V.8.2.1 and Mindmaster Pro presented the basic information of the included studies and the timeline of LSR development, respectively. The author and country cooperation network, hotspot distribution clustering, historical citation network and future development trend prediction related to LSR were visualised by VOSviewer V.1.6.16 and R-Studio V.1.4.

RESULTS

A total of 213 studies were eventually included. The concept of LSR was first proposed in 2014, and the number of studies has proliferated since 2020. There was a closer collaboration between author teams and more frequent LSR research development and collaboration in Europe, North America and Australia. Numerous LSR studies have been published in high-impact journals. COVID-19 is the predominant disease of concern at this stage, and the rehabilitation of its patients and virological studies are possible directions of research in LSR for a long time to come. A review of existing studies found that more than half of the LSR series had not yet been updated and that the method needed to be more standardised in practice.

CONCLUSION

Although LSR has a relatively short history, it has received much attention and currently has a high overall acceptance. The LSR methodology was further practised in COVID-19, and we look forward to seeing it applied in more areas.

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.

Patterns of combustible and electronic cigarette use during pregnancy and associated pregnancy outcomes

Although pregnant smokers may perceive electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as safe alternatives to smoking combustible cigarettes, few studies have evaluated perinatal e-cigarette use and its associated health effects. We analyzed data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS, 2016-2018) for 16,022 women who recently gave birth and reported smoking combustible cigarettes prior to pregnancy. Using average marginal predictive values from multivariable logistic regression to produce adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs), we estimated the prevalence of combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes associated with e-cigarette use. In total, 14.8% of smoking women reported using e-cigarettes prior to pregnancy. There was no association between e-cigarette use prior to pregnancy and combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy (aPR 0.95; 95% CI 0.88, 1.02); however, e-cigarette use during pregnancy was associated with higher prevalence of combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy (aPR 1.65; 95% CI 1.52, 1.80). In this sample, we did not observe evidence to support reduced risk of preterm birth, small-for-gestational age and low birthweight compared to combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy. The prevalence of LBW was higher for those who used e-cigarettes, even exclusively, compared to women who quit smoking cigarettes entirely. These results suggest that e-cigarettes should not be considered a safe alternative to combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

A Droplet Digital PCR Assay for Smoking Predicts All-Cause Mortality

OBJECTIVES

-Determine whether an epigenetic assay for smoking predicts all-cause mortality in adults participating in a longitudinal study of Iowa adoptees.

BACKGROUND

-Improved biomarkers for smoking are needed given its large public health impact and significant limitations of both self-report and current biomarkers, such as cotinine in detecting smoking. In the past 5 years, multiple epigenome-wide association studies of smoking have identified loci suitable for translation as epigenetic biomarkers for smoking, in particular the CpG cg05575921. Digital polymerase chain reaction methods hold promise for the development of this and other epigenetic biomarkers.

METHODS

-Participants in the Iowa Adoption Studies were interviewed regarding their smoking habits. DNA was prepared from whole blood and bisulfite-converted for methylation analysis and digital droplet polymerase chain reaction assay of methylation at cg05575921 was performed. National Death Index records were requested for 584 study participants, resulting in 24 complete matches, 210 partial matches and 350 non-matching records. Complete matches were coded as deceased while the remainder were coded as alive (ie, censored). In total, methylation data and vital status information were available for a total of N = 193 subjects, including 15 deceased and 178 non-deceased. Cox regression was used to examine the ability of cg05575921 methylation as a continuous value to predict the timing of mortality with and without the inclusion of age, sex, race, BMI, marital status, educational status, socioeconomic status, cardiovascular risk factors, and a history of cancer as covariates.

RESULTS

-Methylation at cg05575921 predicted the hazard of mortality as the sole predictor and after accounting for major demographic and clinical risk factors. The fitted model showed the hazard ratio increased by 3.5% for every 1% decrease in methylation.

CONCLUSIONS

-Decreased methylation at cg05575921, an emerging epigenetic biomarker for smoking, was associated with early mortality in a longitudinal study of adults after accounting for the impact of major demographic and clinical risk factors for all-cause mortality. This approach may be useful in clinical research or actuarial assessments.

[New tobacco products, a threat for tobacco control and public health of Mexico]

The new tobacco products that include electronic cigarettes (called "E Cig", "e-hookahs", "mods", "vape-pens"), electronic nicotine delivery systems (SEAN, Spanish acronym), similar systems without nicotine (SSSN, Spanish acronym) and alternative nicotine consumption systems (SACN, Spanish acronym), are positioned in the global market with a discourse of harm reduction and risk minimization. This manuscript summarizes the scientific evidence and presents a regulatory proposal for this technological innovation, oriented to guide the decision making of legislators, government institutions and organized civil society. The scientific evidence concludes that there is no safe tobacco product for health. The addictive nature of nicotine and the health damages for children, adolescents and pregnant women is the fundamental argument. These new products promote the transition to conventional cigarettes and have not shown efficacy for smoking cessation, on the contrary, they promote dual use. High-level regulation must be formulated without the intervention of the manufacturers or institutions with a conflict of interest in the context of the complete and integral World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control implementation.

Messages matter: The Tobacco Products Directive nicotine addiction health warning versus an alternative relative risk message on smokers' willingness to use and purchase an electronic cigarette

INTRODUCTION

Many countries have now mandated warning labels on e-cigarette products. One example, the EU TPD health warning states, "This product contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance. [It is not recommended for use by non-smokers]". The impact of the EU TPD warning message on intentions to use, has not been explored within an EU population.

AIMS

Examine the effect of i) the TPD e-cigarette health warning and ii) an alternative relative risk message, on smokers' willingness to use, likelihood of purchase, and intention to use as a quit aid.

METHODS

Cross-sectional online study. Ninety-five smokers (55 males; 18-55 years old) were randomly allocated to one of three conditions and viewed ten individually presented e-cigarettes images with either no message, TPD message, or relative risk message. Participants rated i) willingness to use, and likelihood of: ii) purchase, iii) using in the next month, and iv) using in a quit attempt, before and after viewing the images.

RESULTS

For willingness to use and likelihood of purchase, ANCOVAs showed a significant main effect of Message Type (ps, <.05); ratings were lower in the TPD condition. Message type, however did not significantly change likelihood of using in the next month or using in a quit attempt.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary findings suggest that the TPD e-cigarette health warning may reduce smokers' willingness to use and likelihood of purchasing an e-cigarette. Messages conveying reduced harm or indeed, no message at all, may be more effective in encouraging smokers to switch to these lower risk products.

E-cigarette Use and Smoking Cessation Among South Korean Adult Smokers: A Propensity Score-Matching Approach

Research on the efficacy of e-cigarette use as a smoking cessation tool has yielded inconclusive results. Hence, the objective of this study was to identify the relationship between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation among South Korean adult smokers. This study used data from the sixth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2015) of 2965 adult smokers aged 19 years and older. As statistical analysis methods, data were analyzed using the χ² test and multiple logistic regression. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to control selection bias, and sociodemographic and smoking-linked factors were used as covariates in PSM. According to the multiple logistic regression analysis, adult smokers who had not used e-cigarettes were more likely to attempt to quit smoking than those who had used e-cigarettes in the prematching (OR = 1.58; 95% CI = 1.18-2.12) and postmatching (OR = 1.62; 95% CI = 1.08-2.44) samples. Thus, this study suggests that e-cigarette use among South Korean adult smokers was not related to smoking cessation.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are electronic devices that heat a liquid into an aerosol for inhalation. The liquid usually comprises propylene glycol and glycerol, with or without nicotine and flavours, and stored in disposable or refillable cartridges or a reservoir. Since ECs appeared on the market in 2006 there has been a steady growth in sales. Smokers report using ECs to reduce risks of smoking, but some healthcare organizations, tobacco control advocacy groups and policy makers have been reluctant to encourage smokers to switch to ECs, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. Smokers, healthcare providers and regulators are interested to know if these devices can help smokers 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 safety and effect of using 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 from 2004 to January 2016, together with reference checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which current smokers (motivated or unmotivated to quit) were randomized to EC or a control condition, and which measured abstinence rates at six months or longer. As the field of EC research is new, we also included cohort follow-up studies with at least six months follow-up. We included randomized cross-over trials, RCTs and cohort follow-up studies that included at least one week of EC use for assessment of adverse events (AEs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, and we used the most rigorous definition available (continuous, biochemically validated, longest follow-up). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study, and where appropriate we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified over 1700 records, from which we include 24 completed studies (three RCTs, two of which were eligible for our cessation meta-analysis, and 21 cohort studies). Eleven of these studies are new for this version of the review. We identified 27 ongoing studies. Two RCTs compared EC with placebo (non-nicotine) EC, with a combined sample size of 662 participants. One trial included minimal telephone support and one recruited smokers not intending to quit, and both used early EC models with low nicotine content and poor battery life. We judged the RCTs to be at low risk of bias, but under the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes as 'low' or 'very low', because of imprecision due to the small number of trials. A 'low' grade means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. A 'very low' grade means we are very uncertain about the estimate. Participants using an EC were more likely to have abstained from smoking for at least six months compared with participants using placebo EC (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.96; placebo 4% versus EC 9%; 2 studies; 662 participants. GRADE: low). The one study that compared EC to nicotine patch found no significant difference in six-month abstinence rates, but the confidence intervals do not rule out a clinically important difference (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34; 584 participants. GRADE: very low).Of the included studies, none reported serious adverse events considered related to EC use. The most frequently reported AEs were mouth and throat irritation, most commonly dissipating over time. One RCT provided data on the proportion of participants experiencing any adverse events. The proportion of participants in the study arms experiencing adverse events was similar (ECs vs placebo EC: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34 (298 participants); ECs vs patch: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22 (456 participants)). The second RCT reported no statistically significant difference in the frequency of AEs at three- or 12-month follow-up between the EC and placebo EC groups, and showed that in all groups the frequency of AEs (with the exception of throat irritation) decreased significantly over time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking in the long term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. None of the included studies (short- to mid-term, up to two years) detected serious adverse events considered possibly related to EC use. The most commonly reported adverse effects were irritation of the mouth and throat. The long-term safety of ECs is unknown. In this update, we found a further 15 ongoing RCTs which appear eligible for this review.

How and Why Do Smokers Start Using E-Cigarettes? Qualitative Study of Vapers in London, UK

The aims of the study were to (1) describe how and why smokers start to vape and what products they use; (2) relate findings to the COM-B theory of behaviour change (three conditions are necessary for behaviour change (B): capability (C), opportunity (O), and motivation (M)); and (3) to consider implications for e-cigarette policy research. Semi-structured interviews (n = 30) were conducted in London, UK, with smokers or ex-smokers who were currently using or had used e-cigarettes. E-cigarette initiation (behaviour) was facilitated by: capability (physical capability to use an e-cigarette and psychological capability to understand that using e-cigarettes was less harmful than smoking); opportunity (physical opportunity to access e-cigarettes in shops, at a lower cost than cigarettes, and to vape in "smoke-free" environments, as well as social opportunity to vape with friends and family); and motivation (automatic motivation including curiosity, and reflective motivation, including self-conscious decision-making processes related to perceived health benefits). The application of the COM-B model identified multiple factors that may lead to e-cigarette initiation, including those that could be influenced by policy, such as price relative to cigarettes and use in smoke-free environments. The effects of these policies on initiation should be further investigated along with the possible moderating/mediating effects of social support.

[The challenge of electronic cigarettes]

The electronic cigarette (e-cig) is a device with a conventional cigarette shape that releases a determined dose of nicotine vapour through an electronic heating process. The nicotine cartridges vary significantly in the amount of nicotine released, even within the same brand. Not all brands admit that they contain nicotine, but this is detected in the majority of units analysed. The e-cig usually contains a propellant, such as propylene glycol, which is a lung irritant. The short-term respiratory effect of the vapour of an e-cig is similar to that caused by the smoke of a cigarette, and is a cause of broncho-restriction. The majority of brands contain glycerine and at least one case of lipoid pneumonia has been detected due to this substance. Many brands contain traces of N-nitrosamines, heavy metals, and other products that are found in conventional cigarette smoke, but in a much higher proportion. There is currently no scientific evidence available that shows it is an effective device for quitting smoking, thus it should not be pro-actively recommended for this purpose, and may interfere with the use of demonstrated scientific evidence-based treatments for quitting smoking. It may have an undesirable effect on promoting the starting of smoking in adolescents or keeping adult smokers consuming nicotine and on gestural dependency. The toxicity of the vapour is not well known, but it is known that they are not innocuous, thus they should not be used in closed public spaces.

Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking in pregnancy remains one of the few preventable factors associated with complications in pregnancy, stillbirth, low birthweight and preterm birth and has serious long-term implications for women and babies. Smoking in pregnancy is decreasing in high-income countries, but is strongly associated with poverty and increasing in low- to middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy on smoking behaviour and perinatal health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

In this fifth update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 March 2013), checked reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors to locate additional unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials, randomised cross-over trials, and quasi-randomised controlled trials (with allocation by maternal birth date or hospital record number) of psychosocial smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality, and extracted data. Direct comparisons were conducted in RevMan, and subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were conducted in SPSS.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-six trials were included in this updated review, with 77 trials (involving over 29,000 women) providing data on smoking abstinence in late pregnancy.In separate comparisons, counselling interventions demonstrated a significant effect compared with usual care (27 studies; average risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.75), and a borderline effect compared with less intensive interventions (16 studies; average RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82). However, a significant effect was only seen in subsets where counselling was provided in conjunction with other strategies. It was unclear whether any type of counselling strategy is more effective than others (one study; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.53). In studies comparing counselling and usual care (the largest comparison), it was unclear whether interventions prevented smoking relapse among women who had stopped smoking spontaneously in early pregnancy (eight studies; average RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21). However, a clear effect was seen in smoking abstinence at zero to five months postpartum (10 studies; average RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.95), a borderline effect at six to 11 months (six studies; average RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77), and a significant effect at 12 to 17 months (two studies, average RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.96), but not in the longer term. In other comparisons, the effect was not significantly different from the null effect for most secondary outcomes, but sample sizes were small.Incentive-based interventions had the largest effect size compared with a less intensive intervention (one study; RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.84 to 7.23) and an alternative intervention (one study; RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.48 to 11.11).Feedback interventions demonstrated a significant effect only when compared with usual care and provided in conjunction with other strategies, such as counselling (two studies; average RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 10.21), but the effect was unclear when compared with a less intensive intervention (two studies; average RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.12).The effect of health education was unclear when compared with usual care (three studies; average RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.59) or less intensive interventions (two studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.31).Social support interventions appeared effective when provided by peers (five studies; average RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.19), but the effect was unclear in a single trial of support provided by partners.The effects were mixed where the smoking interventions were provided as part of broader interventions to improve maternal health, rather than targeted smoking cessation interventions.Subgroup analyses on primary outcome for all studies showed the intensity of interventions and comparisons has increased over time, with higher intensity interventions more likely to have higher intensity comparisons. While there was no significant difference, trials where the comparison group received usual care had the largest pooled effect size (37 studies; average RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.44), with lower effect sizes when the comparison group received less intensive interventions (30 studies; average RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.31), or alternative interventions (two studies; average RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.53). More recent studies included in this update had a lower effect size (20 studies; average RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.59), I(2)= 3%, compared to those in the previous version of the review (50 studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.73). There were similar effect sizes in trials with biochemically validated smoking abstinence (49 studies; average RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67) and those with self-reported abstinence (20 studies; average RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.87). There was no significant difference between trials implemented by researchers (efficacy studies), and those implemented by routine pregnancy staff (effectiveness studies), however the effect was unclear in three dissemination trials of counselling interventions where the focus on the intervention was at an organisational level (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.50). The pooled effects were similar in interventions provided for women with predominantly low socio-economic status (44 studies; average RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.66), compared to other women (26 studies; average RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79); though the effect was unclear in interventions among women from ethnic minority groups (five studies; average RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.40) and aboriginal women (two studies; average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.67). Importantly, pooled results demonstrated that women who received psychosocial interventions had an 18% reduction in preterm births (14 studies; average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96), and infants born with low birthweight (14 studies; average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94). There did not appear to be any adverse effects from the psychosocial interventions, and three studies measured an improvement in women's psychological wellbeing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial interventions to support women to stop smoking in pregnancy can increase the proportion of women who stop smoking in late pregnancy, and reduce low birthweight and preterm births.