Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

Characterization techniques for tobacco and its derivatives: a systematic review

Biomass and its derivatives have broad applications in the fields of bio-catalysis, energy storage, environmental remediation. The structure and components of biomass, which are vital parameters affecting corresponding performances of derived products, need to be fully understood for further regulating the biomass and its derivatives. Herein, tobacco is taken as an example of biomass to introduce the typical characterization techniques in unraveling the structural information, chemical components, and properties of biomass and its derivatives. Firstly, the structural information, chemical components and application for biomass are summarized. Then the characterization techniques together with the resultant structural information and chemical components are introduced. Finally, to promote a wide and deep study in this field, the perspectives and challenges concerning structure and composition charaterization in biomass and its derivatives are put forward.

Smartphone application versus written material for smoking reduction and cessation in individuals undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer: a phase II open-label randomised controlled trial

Background

Counseling, nicotine replacement, and other cessation medications have been proven effective in smoking cessation. The wide-scale adoption of smartphones and other mobile devices has opened new possibilities for scalable and personalized smoking cessation approaches. The study investigated whether a smartphone application would be more effective than written material for smoking cessation and reduction in smoking in individuals undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer (NCT05630950).

Methods

This randomized controlled trial enrolled 201 current smokers with marked smoking history (smoked ≥15 cigarettes/day for ≥25 years or smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day for ≥30 years). Participants were stratified by age and pack-years and randomized in 1:1 fashion to the developed smartphone application (experimental arm) or written material (standard of care). All the subjects underwent LDCT screening. Self-reported smoking cessation at three and six months were the primary endpoints of the study. The smoking-related secondary endpoints of the study were the percentage of individuals who had reduced the number of smoked cigarettes/d from the baseline.

Findings

Between Nov 18, 2022, and Apr 14, 2023, 201 patients were screened at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, of whom all were randomly assigned to smartphone application (n = 101) or written cessation material (n = 100); 200 were included in the full analysis set. Study arms were well-balanced for all the studied demographic factors. Subjects randomized to the smartphone application arm had significantly higher rates for self-reported smoking cessation at three (19.8 versus 7.1%; OR 3.175 CI 95% 1.276-7.899) and six months (18.8 versus 7.1%; OR 2.847 CI 95% 1.137-7.128). In the experimental arm, individuals with a frequent use of the application had a higher chance for smoking cessation at three (p < 0.001) and six months (p = 0.003).

Interpretation

The study showed that the developed smartphone application increases the likelihood for smoking cessation in individuals undergoing lung cancer LDCT screening.

Funding

AstraZeneca, Roche, and Cancer Foundation Finland.

Efficacy of simple and very brief handgrip and isometric exercises for reducing withdrawal symptoms in cigarette smokers: A pilot randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Withdrawal symptoms lead to smoking relapse and reduce the intention to quit. The present pilot RCT examined the effect of simple and very brief handgrip and isometric exercises on reducing withdrawal symptoms, measured by the strength of tobacco craving, Questionnaire of Smoking Urges-Brief (QSU-B), Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale (MPSS), and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS).

METHODS

In this 2-arm, open-labeled pilot RCT, 30 current smokers who had abstained from tobacco for at least 9 hours were randomly assigned (allocation ratio 1:1) to either the intervention group that watched a 5-minute video and did 5-minute handgrip and isometric exercises (pulling and pushing) or control group that watched 10-minute healthy-diet videos. Measurements were taken before, immediately after, and 10 minutes post-intervention. Outcomes were self-reported strength of tobacco craving, QSU-B, MPSS, and PANAS scores. The effect size for group-by-time interaction was assessed using Cohen's f2 (small=0.02, medium=0.15, large=0.35).

RESULTS

Group-by-time interactions showed that the intervention group showed larger reductions than the control group in the strength of tobacco craving (Cohen's f2=0.54, 95% CI: 0.52-0.57), QSU-B (Cohen's f2=0.77; 95% CI: 0.74-0.80), and MPSS (Cohen's f2=0.51; 95% CI: 0.46-0.56) over the three measurement points.

CONCLUSIONS

This RCT showed that simple and brief handgrip and isometric exercises could immediately reduce withdrawal symptoms and up to 10 minutes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

in https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

IDENTIFIER

NCT04059497.

Economic Evaluation of Enhanced vs Standard Varenicline Treatment for Tobacco Cessation

Importance

Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and illness in the US. Identifying cost-effective smoking cessation treatment may increase the likelihood that health systems deliver such treatment to their patients who smoke.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard vs enhanced varenicline use (extended varenicline treatment or varenicline in combination with nicotine replacement therapy) among individuals trying to quit smoking.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation assesses the Quitting Using Intensive Treatments Study (QUITS), which randomized 1251 study participants who smoked into 4 conditions: (1) 12-week varenicline monotherapy (n = 315); (2) 24-week varenicline monotherapy (n = 311); (3) 12-week varenicline combination treatment with nicotine replacement therapy patch (n = 314); or (4) 24-week varenicline combination treatment with nicotine replacement therapy patch (n = 311). Study enrollment occurred in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, between November 11, 2017, and July 2, 2020. Statistical analysis took place from May to October 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence abstinence (biochemically confirmed with exhaled carbon monoxide level ≤5 ppm) at 52 weeks. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), or cost per additional person who quit smoking, was calculated using decision tree analysis based on abstinence and cost for each arm of the trial.

Results

Of the 1251 participants, mean (SD) age was 49.1 (11.9) years, 675 (54.0%) were women, and 881 (70.4%) completed the 52-week follow-up. Tobacco cessation at 52 weeks was 25.1% (79 of 315) for 12-week monotherapy, 24.4% (76 of 311) for 24-week monotherapy, 23.6% (74 of 314) for 12-week combination therapy, and 25.1% (78 of 311) for 24-week combination therapy, respectively. The total mean (SD) cost was $1175 ($365) for 12-week monotherapy, $1374 ($412) for 12-week combination therapy, $2022 ($813) for 24-week monotherapy, and $2118 ($1058) for 24-week combination therapy. The ICER for 12-week varenicline monotherapy was $4681 per individual who quit smoking and $4579 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) added. The ICER for 24-week varenicline combination therapy relative to 12-week monotherapy was $92 000 000 per additional individual who quit smoking and $90 000 000 (95% CI, $15 703 to dominated or more costly and less efficacious) per additional QALY.

Conclusions and Relevance

This economic evaluation of standard vs enhanced varenicline treatment for smoking cessation suggests that 12-week varenicline monotherapy was the most cost-effective treatment option at the commonly cited threshold of $100 000/QALY. This study provides patients, health care professionals, and other stakeholders with increased understanding of the health and economic impact of more intensive varenicline treatment options.

Lung cancer screening in Brazil: recommendations from the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery, Brazilian Thoracic Association, and Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging

Although lung cancer (LC) is one of the most common and lethal tumors, only 15% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage. Smoking is still responsible for more than 85% of cases. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) reduces LC-related mortality by 20%, and that reduction reaches 38% when LCS by LDCT is combined with smoking cessation. In the last decade, a number of countries have adopted population-based LCS as a public health recommendation. Albeit still incipient, discussion on this topic in Brazil is becoming increasingly broad and necessary. With the aim of increasing knowledge and stimulating debate on LCS, the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery, the Brazilian Thoracic Association, and the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging convened a panel of experts to prepare recommendations for LCS in Brazil. The recommendations presented here were based on a narrative review of the literature, with an emphasis on large population-based studies, systematic reviews, and the recommendations of international guidelines, and were developed after extensive discussion by the panel of experts. The following topics were reviewed: reasons for screening; general considerations about smoking; epidemiology of LC; eligibility criteria; incidental findings; granulomatous lesions; probabilistic models; minimum requirements for LDCT; volumetric acquisition; risks of screening; minimum structure and role of the multidisciplinary team; practice according to the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System; costs versus benefits of screening; and future perspectives for LCS.

Efficacy of Electronic Cigarettes vs Varenicline and Nicotine Chewing Gum as an Aid to Stop Smoking: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are often used by smokers as an aid to stopping smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their efficacy compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and no evidence is available on how their efficacy compares with that of varenicline.

Objective

To evaluate whether ECs are superior to NRT and noninferior to varenicline in helping smokers quit.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a randomized clinical trial conducted at 7 sites in China and including participants who were smoking at least 10 cigarettes per day and motivated to quit, not using stop-smoking medications or EC, and willing to use any of the study products. Participants were first recruited in May 2021, and data analysis was conducted in December 2022.

Interventions

A cartridge-based EC (30 mg/mL nicotine salt for 2 weeks and 50 mg/mL after that), varenicline (0.5 mg, once a day for 3 days; 0.5 mg, twice a day for 4 days; and 1 mg, twice a day, after that), and 2 mg (for smokers of ≤20 cigarettes per day) or 4 mg (>20 cigarettes per day) nicotine chewing gum, all provided for 12 weeks and accompanied by minimal behavioral support (an invitation to join a self-help internet forum).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was sustained abstinence from smoking at 6 months as validated by an expired-air carbon monoxide reading (<8 parts per million). Participants lost to follow-up were included as nonabstainers.

Results

Of 1068 participants, 357 (33.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 33.9 (3.1) years. A total of 409 (38.3%), 409 (38.3%), and 250 (23.4%) participants were randomized to the EC, varenicline, and NRT arms, respectively. The 6-month biochemically validated abstinence rates were 15.7% (n = 64), 14.2% (n = 58), and 8.8% (n = 22) in the EC, varenicline, and NRT study arms, respectively. The quit rate in the EC arm was noninferior to the varenicline arm (absolute risk reduction, 1.47%; 95% CI, -1.41% to 4.34%) and higher than in the NRT arm (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.15-3.21). Treatment adherence was similar in all study arms during the initial 3 months, but 257 participants (62.8%) in the EC arm were still using ECs at 6 months, with no further use in the 2 other study arms. The most common adverse reactions were throat irritation (32 [7.8%]) and mouth irritation (28 [6.9%]) in the EC arm, nausea (36 [8.8%]) in the varenicline arm, and throat irritation (20 [8.0%]) and mouth irritation (22 [8.8%]) in the NRT arm. No serious adverse events were recorded.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this randomized clinical trial found that when all treatments were provided with minimal behavior support, the efficacy of EC was noninferior to varenicline and superior to nicotine chewing gum.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100048156.

Evidence-Based Guideline for the Treatment of Smoking Cessation Provided by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea

Although major countries, such as South Korea, have developed and disseminated national smoking cessation guidelines, these efforts have been limited to developing individual societies or specialized institution-based recommendations. Therefore, evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential for developing smoking cessation interventions and promoting effective smoking cessation treatments. This guideline targets frontline clinical practitioners involved in a smoking cessation treatment support program implemented in 2015 with the support of the National Health Insurance Service. The Guideline Development Group of 10 multidisciplinary smoking cessation experts employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach to review recent domestic and international research and guidelines and to determine evidence levels using the GRADE methodology. The guideline panel formulated six strong recommendations and one conditional recommendation regarding pharmacotherapy choices among general and special populations (mental disorders and chronic obstructive lung disease [COPD]). Strong recommendations favor varenicline rather than a nicotine patch or bupropion, using varenicline even if they are not ready to quit, using extended pharmacotherapy (>12 weeks) rather than standard treatment (8-12 weeks), or using pharmacotherapy for individuals with mental disorders or COPD. The conditional recommendation suggests combining varenicline with a nicotine patch instead of using varenicline alone. Aligned with the Korean Society of Medicine's clinical guideline development process, this is South Korea's first domestic smoking cessation treatment guideline that follows standardized guidelines. Primarily focusing on pharmacotherapy, it can serve as a foundation for comprehensive future smoking cessation clinical guidelines, encompassing broader treatment topics beyond medications.

Testing the feasibility of the QuitAid smoking cessation intervention in a randomized factorial design in an independent, rural community pharmacy

BACKGROUND

Adult smoking rates in the USA are highest in economically depressed rural Appalachia. Pharmacist-delivered tobacco cessation support that incorporates medication therapy management (such as the QuitAid intervention) is a promising approach to address this need.

METHODS

Twenty-four adult smokers recruited between September and November 2021 through an independent pharmacy in rural Appalachia were randomized in a non-blinded 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design to (1) pharmacist delivered QuitAid intervention (yes vs. no); (2) combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) gum + NRT patch (vs. NRT patch); and/or (3) 8 weeks of NRT (vs. standard 4 weeks). Participants received 4 weeks of NRT patch in addition to the components to which they were assigned. Participants completed baseline and 3-month follow-up assessments. Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment and randomization, retention, treatment adherence, and fidelity.

RESULTS

Participants were recruited in 7 weeks primarily through a referral process, commonly referred to as ask-advise-connect (61%). Participants were on average 52.4 years old, 29.2% were male and the majority were white (91.6%) and Non-Hispanic (91.7%). There was a high level of adherence to the interventions, with 85% of QuitAid sessions completed, 83.3% of the patch used, and 54.5% of gum used. Participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the program, and there was a high level of retention (92%).

CONCLUSIONS

This demonstration pilot randomized controlled study indicates that an ask-advise-connect model for connecting rural smokers to smoking cessation support and providing QuitAid for smoking cessation is feasible and acceptable among rural Appalachian smokers and independent pharmacists. Further investigation into the efficacy of a pharmacist-delivered approach for smoking cessation is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial #: NCT05649241.

Current Pharmacotherapies for Smoking Cessation and Promising Emerging Drugs

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacotherapy is commonly used during quit attempts and has shown an increase in the likelihood of achieving abstinence. However, with established pharmacotherapies, abstinence rates following a quit attempt remain low, and relapse is common. This review aims to investigate the efficacy and harm profiles of current and emerging pharmacotherapies.

METHODS

Literature review of current and emerging pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation and tobacco use disorder.

RESULTS

Emerging pharmacotherapies include new formulations of existing therapies, drug repurposing and some new treatments. New treatments are welcome and may incorporate different mechanisms of action or different safety and tolerability profiles compared to existing treatments. However, emerging pharmacotherapies have yet to demonstrate greater efficacy compared to existing treatments. The emergence of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) or 'vaping' is a feature of the current debate around tobacco use disorder. ENDS appear to facilitate switching but not quitting and are controversial as a harm minimisation strategy.

LIMITATIONS

Studies included a broad range of therapies and trial designs that should be compared with their differences taken into consideration.

CONCLUSION

Strategies to successfully quit smoking vary between individuals and may extend beyond pharmacotherapy and involve complex psychosocial factors and pathways.

Nicotine and Cardiovascular Health: When Poison is Addictive - a WHF Policy Brief

Nicotine is universally recognized as the primary addictive substance fuelling the continued use of tobacco products, which are responsible for over 8 million deaths annually. In recent years, the popularity of newer recreational nicotine products has surged drastically in many countries, raising health and safety concerns. For decades, the tobacco industry has promoted the myth that nicotine is as harmless as caffeine. Nonetheless, evidence shows that nicotine is far from innocuous, even on its own. In fact, numerous studies have demonstrated that nicotine can harm multiple organs, including the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Tobacco and recreational nicotine products are commercialized in various types and forms, delivering varying levels of nicotine along with other toxic compounds. These products deliver nicotine in profiles that can initiate and perpetuate addiction, especially in young populations. Notably, some electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and heated tobacco products (HTP) can deliver concentrations of nicotine that are comparable to those of traditional cigarettes. Despite being regularly advertised as such, ENDS and HTP have demonstrated limited effectiveness as tobacco cessation aids in real-world settings. Furthermore, ENDS have also been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. In contrast, nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) are proven to be safe and effective medications for tobacco cessation. NRTs are designed to release nicotine in a slow and controlled manner, thereby minimizing the potential for abuse. Moreover, the long-term safety of NRTs has been extensively studied and documented. The vast majority of tobacco and nicotine products available in the market currently contain nicotine derived from tobacco leaves. However, advancements in the chemical synthesis of nicotine have introduced an economically viable alternative source. The tobacco industry has been exploiting synthetic nicotine to circumvent existing tobacco control laws and regulations. The emergence of newer tobacco and recreational nicotine products, along with synthetic nicotine, pose a tangible threat to established tobacco control policies. Nicotine regulations need to be responsive to address these evolving challenges. As such, governments should regulate all tobacco and non-medical nicotine products through a global, comprehensive, and consistent approach in order to safeguard tobacco control progress in past decades.

Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating nicotine, cotinine and carbon monoxide exposures in people who both smoke and use nicotine replacement therapy

AIMS

To determine effects of concurrent smoking and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use on reported heaviness of smoking, nicotine (cotinine) body fluid and exhaled air carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, which test interventions permitting concurrent NRT use and smoking and comparing, within participants, outcomes when smoking with those when smoking and using NRT concurrently. Measurements included reported number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), body fluid cotinine and expired air CO concentrations.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the review. Meta-analysis of nine showed that, compared with when solely smoking, fewer cigarettes were smoked daily when NRT was used (mean difference during concurrent smoking and NRT use, -2.06 CPD [95% CI = -3.06 to -1.07, P < 0.0001]). Meta-analysis of seven studies revealed a non-significant reduction in exhaled CO during concurrent smoking and NRT use (mean difference, -0.58 ppm [95% CI = -2.18 to 1.03, P = 0.48]), but in the three studies that tested NRT used in the lead-up to quitting (i.e. as preloading), a similar reduction in exhaled CO was statistically significant (mean difference, -2.54 ppm CO [95% CI = -4.14 to -0.95, P = 0.002]). Eleven studies reported cotinine concentrations, but meta-analysis was not possible because of data reporting heterogeneity; of these, seven reported lower cotinine concentrations with concurrent NRT use and smoking, four reported no differences, and none reported higher concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

People who smoke and also use nicotine replacement therapy report smoking less heavily than people who solely smoke. When nicotine replacement therapy is used in the lead-up to quitting (preloading), this reported smoking reduction has been biochemically confirmed. There is no evidence that concurrent smoking and nicotine replacement therapy use result in greater nicotine exposure than solely smoking.

Varenicline Combined With Oral Nicotine Replacement Therapy and Smartphone-Based Medication Reminders for Smoking Cessation: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Varenicline and oral nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) have each been shown to increase the likelihood of smoking cessation, but their combination has not been studied. In addition, smoking cessation medication adherence is often poor, thus, challenging the ability to evaluate medication efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the effects of combined varenicline and oral NRT and smartphone medication reminders on pharmacotherapy adherence and smoking abstinence among adults enrolled in smoking cessation treatment.

METHODS

A 2×2 factorial design was used. Participants (N=34) were randomized to (1) varenicline + oral NRT (VAR+NRT) or varenicline alone (VAR) and (2) smartphone medication reminder messages (REM) or no reminder messages (NREM) over 13 weeks. Participants assigned to VAR+REM received varenicline reminder prompts, and those assigned to VAR+NRT+REM also received reminders to use oral NRT. The other 2 groups (VAR+NREM and VAR+NRT+NREM) did not receive medication reminders. Participants were not blinded to intervention groups. All participants received tobacco cessation counseling. Smartphone assessments of smoking as well as varenicline and NRT use (if applicable) were prompted daily through the first 12 weeks after a scheduled quit date. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize the relations between medication and reminder group assignments with daily smoking, daily varenicline adherence, and daily quantity of oral NRT used. Participants completed follow-up assessments for 26 weeks after the quit date.

RESULTS

Participants were predominantly White (71%), and half were female (50%). On average, participants were 54.2 (SD 9.4) years of age, they smoked an average of 19.0 (SD 9.0) cigarettes per day and had smoked for 34.6 (SD 12.7) years. Descriptively, participants assigned to VAR+NRT reported more days of smoking abstinence compared to VAR (29.3 vs 26.3 days). Participants assigned to REM reported more days of smoking abstinence than those assigned to NREM (40.5 vs 21.8 days). Participants assigned to REM were adherent to varenicline on more days compared to those assigned to NREM (58.6 vs 40.5 days), and participants assigned to VAR were adherent to varenicline on more days than those assigned to VAR + NRT (50.7 vs 43.3 days). In the subsample of participants assigned to VAR+NRT, participants assigned to REM reported more days where ≥5 pieces of NRT were used than NREM (14.0 vs 7.4 days). Average overall medication adherence (assessed via the Medication Adherence Questionnaire) showed the same pattern as the daily smartphone-based adherence assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary findings indicated that smoking cessation interventions may benefit from incorporating medication reminders and combining varenicline with oral NRT, though combining medications may be associated with poorer adherence. Further study is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03722966; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03722966.

Perceptions, intentions, and actual use of a consumer nicotine gum

BACKGROUND

Little is known about perceptions, use intentions, and behaviors of adults regarding nicotine gum that is marketed and regulated as a consumer product rather than as a medicinal nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

METHODS

Survey data were collected from a Qualtrics online panel (N = 1000) of adults who had never used a consumer nicotine gum, recruited based on smoking behavior, and from current and former purchasers of one commercially available nicotine gum product (LUCY Chew and Park), recruited via emails to a customer database (N = 500). In addition to descriptive cross-sectional analyses, logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of intent to try and of product appeal among these different groups.

RESULTS

Among online panel respondents, individuals who smoked with and without plans to quit showed high intention to try the product (odds ratios 15.6 [95% CI 9.3, 27.6] and 9.8 [95% CI 5.8, 17.3] respectively, compared to people who formerly smoked) and persons who had never smoked showed low intentions to try. These results stood regardless of flavor. Among current and former purchasers of the study product, 43.4% of persons who had smoked cigarettes regularly indicated they were motivated to try the product "to help me quit smoking." Only 0.6% of young adult consumers of the nicotine gum (aged 21-30) had not tried tobacco products previously.

CONCLUSIONS

Consumer nicotine gum does not appear to attract those who have never used a tobacco product and the results for young adults suggest minimal appeal to youth. The study product was used primarily by individuals who currently smoke and/or use e-cigarettes but who wished to quit or reduce consumption. These results suggest that a consumer nicotine gum may reduce harm by substituting for higher-risk products such as combustible cigarettes.

Pharmacological and electronic cigarette interventions for smoking cessation in adults: component network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation.

Effectiveness of nicotine salt vapes, cytisine, and a combination of these products, for smoking cessation in New Zealand: protocol for a three-arm, pragmatic, community-based randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Combining short-acting nicotine replacement therapy with varenicline increases smoking cessation rates compared with varenicline alone, but not all people tolerate these medications or find them helpful. We aim to investigate the therapeutic potential of an analogous combination, by evaluating the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of combining nicotine salt e-cigarettes with cytisine, compared to nicotine salt e-cigarettes or cytisine only, on smoking abstinence at six months.

METHODS

A pragmatic, community-based, investigator-blinded, randomised superiority trial design will be utilised. Eligible participants will be people who smoke daily (N = 800, 90% power) from throughout New Zealand, who are: aged ≥ 18 years, motivated to quit in the next two weeks, able to provide online consent, willing to use e-cigarettes and/or cytisine, and have daily access to a mobile phone. Recruitment will utilise multi-media advertising. Participants will be randomised (3:3:2 ratio) to 12 weeks of: 1) e-cigarettes (closed pod system, 3% nicotine salt, tobacco flavour) plus cytisine; 2) e-cigarettes alone, or 3) cytisine alone. All groups will receive a six-month, text-message-based behavioural support programme. The primary outcome is self-reported, biochemically verified, continuous abstinence at six months post-quit date. Secondary outcomes, measured at quit date, then one, three, six, and 12 months post-quit date, include self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes smoked per day, withdrawal and urge to smoke, time to (re)lapse, treatment use and compliance, treatment crossover, dual-use, use of other cessation products, change in e-cigarette products, continuation of product use, acceptability, change in health state, health-related quality of life, change in body mass index, adverse events, and cost per quitter.

DISCUSSION

Pragmatic trials are of particular value as they reflect the 'real world' impact of interventions. The trial will provide some of the first evidence on the effectiveness of combining nicotine salt e-cigarettes with cytisine for smoking cessation, in a country with strong tobacco control policy. Findings will be incorporated into relevant systematic reviews, informing practice and policy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05311085 ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered 5th April, 2022.

The Effects of Scheduled Smoking Reduction and Precessation Nicotine Replacement Therapy on Smoking Cessation: Randomized Controlled Trial With Compliance

BACKGROUND

Smoking remains a major public health problem, and it is important to provide a variety of efficacious and appealing options to encourage smokers to quit smoking. Scheduled smoking is a method of gradual reduction, preparing smokers to quit by systematically reducing cigarette consumption according to a predetermined schedule that increases the time between cigarette consumption. Gradual reduction may be preferred to abrupt quitting, but the efficacy of this cessation approach is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims, first, to evaluate the overall effectiveness of scheduled smoking alone, or in combination with precessation nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), versus standard NRT starting on the quit date with no prior smoking reduction and, second, to evaluate the impact of schedule compliance on the effectiveness of the intervention.

METHODS

A total of 916 participants recruited from the Houston metropolitan area were randomly assigned to 1 of the following 3 groups: scheduled smoking plus a precessation nicotine patch (n=306, 33.4%), scheduled smoking only with no precessation patch (n=309, 33.7%), and enhanced usual care (n=301, 32.9%) control. The primary abstinence outcomes were carbon monoxide-verified, self-reported, 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 2 and 4 weeks after the quit date. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the intervention effect. Scheduled smoking was implemented using a handheld device for 3 weeks before quitting. This trial was not registered because data collection began before July 1, 2005.

RESULTS

Results for the first aim showed no overall differences in abstinence among the 3 groups in both the unadjusted and adjusted models. However, the results for the second aim showed a clear effect on abstinence by schedule compliance at 2 and 4 weeks and 6 months after quitting (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.31-3.07), 4 weeks (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.05-2.38), and 6 months (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.64), with the differences at 2 and 4 weeks after quitting being the most robust. We also found that scheduled smoking was related to a reduction in nicotine withdrawal, negative affect, and craving when compared with the controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Scheduled smoking, when combined with precessation use of NRT, can result in significantly higher abstinence rates than usual care (abrupt quitting with NRT), particularly in the early postquit phase (2 and 4 weeks after cessation) when smokers are compliant with the procedure. Scheduled smoking also produced a better overall quitting experience by reducing symptoms of nicotine withdrawal and craving, in comparison with usual care, which could encourage future quit attempts. Studies in this area should focus on the use of counseling or other methods to improve adherence.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Interventions for waterpipe smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

While cigarette smoking has declined globally, waterpipe smoking is rising, especially among youth. The impact of this rise is amplified by mounting evidence of its addictive and harmful nature. Waterpipe smoking is influenced by multiple factors, including appealing flavors, marketing, use in social settings, and misperceptions that waterpipe is less harmful or addictive than cigarettes. People who use waterpipes are interested in quitting, but are often unsuccessful at doing so on their own. Therefore, developing and testing waterpipe cessation interventions to help people quit was identified as a priority for global tobacco control efforts.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of tobacco cessation interventions for people who smoke waterpipes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group Specialized Register from database inception to 29 July 2022, using variant terms and spellings ('waterpipe' or 'narghile' or 'arghile' or 'shisha' or 'goza' or 'narkeela' or 'hookah' or 'hubble bubble'). We searched for trials, published or unpublished, in any language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, or cluster-RCTs of any smoking cessation interventions for people who use waterpipes, of any age or gender. In order to be included, studies had to measure waterpipe abstinence at a three-month follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from waterpipe use at least three months after baseline. We also collected data on adverse events. Individual study effects and pooled effects were summarized as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models to combine studies, where appropriate. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I2 statistic. We summarized secondary outcomes narratively. We used the five GRADE considerations (risk of bias, inconsistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for our primary outcome in four categories high, moderate, low, or very low.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included nine studies, involving 2841 participants. All studies were conducted in adults, and were carried out in Iran, Vietnam, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, and the USA. Studies were conducted in several settings, including colleges/universities, community healthcare centers, tuberculosis hospitals, and cancer treatment centers, while two studies tested e-health interventions (online web-based educational intervention, text message intervention). Overall, we judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, and six studies at high risk of bias. We pooled data from five studies (1030 participants) that tested intensive face-to-face behavioral interventions compared with brief behavioral intervention (e.g. one behavioral counseling session), usual care (e.g. self-help materials), or no intervention. In our meta-analysis, we included people who used waterpipe exclusively, or with another form of tobacco. Overall, we found low-certainty evidence of a benefit of behavioral support for waterpipe abstinence (RR 3.19 95% CI 2.17 to 4.69; I2 = 41%; 5 studies, N = 1030). We downgraded the evidence because of imprecision and risk of bias. We pooled data from two studies (N = 662 participants) that tested varenicline combined with behavioral intervention compared with placebo combined with behavioral intervention. Although the point estimate favored varenicline, 95% CIs were imprecise, and incorporated the potential for no difference and lower quit rates in the varenicline groups, as well as a benefit as large as that found in cigarette smoking cessation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.24; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, N = 662; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence because of imprecision. We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of participants experiencing adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44; I2 = 31%; 2 studies, N = 662). The studies did not report serious adverse events.   One study tested the efficacy of seven weeks of bupropion therapy combined with behavioral intervention. There was no clear evidence of benefit for waterpipe cessation when compared with behavioral support alone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.41; 1 study, N = 121; very low-certainty evidence), or with self-help (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.00; 1 study, N = 86; very low-certainty evidence).  Two studies tested e-health interventions. One study reported higher waterpipe quit rates among participants randomized to either a tailored mobile phone or untailored mobile phone intervention compared with those randomized to no intervention (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.05; 2 studies, N = 319; very low-certainty evidence). Another study reported higher waterpipe abstinence rates following an intensive online educational intervention compared with a brief online educational intervention (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.21; 1 study, N = 70; very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that behavioral waterpipe cessation interventions can increase waterpipe quit rates among waterpipe smokers. We found insufficient evidence to assess whether varenicline or bupropion increased waterpipe abstinence; available evidence is compatible with effect sizes similar to those seen for cigarette smoking cessation.  Given e-health interventions' potential reach and effectiveness for waterpipe cessation, trials with large samples and long follow-up periods are needed. Future studies should use biochemical validation of abstinence to prevent the risk of detection bias. Finally, there has been limited attention given to high-risk groups for waterpipe smoking, such as youth, young adults, pregnant women, and dual or poly tobacco users. These groups would benefit from targeted studies.

Coordinating smoking cessation treatment with menstrual cycle phase to improve quit outcomes (MC-NRT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women experience greater difficulty achieving smoking abstinence compared to men. Recent evidence suggests that hormonal fluctuations during different phases of the menstrual cycle can contribute to lower smoking abstinence rates following a quit attempt among women. However, these findings are limited by small sample sizes and variability among targeted smoking quit dates. This clinical trial aims to clarify whether targeting the quit date to the follicular or luteal phase of the menstrual cycle can improve smoking abstinence.

METHODS

Participants will enroll in an online smoking cessation program providing nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and behavioral support. We will randomize 1200 eligible individuals to set a target quit date: (1) during the mid-luteal phase, (2) during the mid-follicular phase, or (3) 15-30 days after enrollment with no regard to the menstrual cycle phase (usual practice). Participants will receive a 6-week supply of combination NRT consisting of a nicotine patch plus their choice of nicotine gum or lozenge. Participants will be instructed to start using NRT on their target quit date. Optional behavioral support will consist of a free downloadable app and brief videos focusing on building a quit plan, coping with cravings, and relapse prevention, delivered via e-mail. Smoking status will be assessed via dried blood spot analysis of cotinine concentration at 7 days, 6 weeks, and 6 months post-target quit date.

DISCUSSION

We aim to overcome the limitations of previous studies by recruiting a large sample of participants and assigning target quit dates to the middle of both the follicular and luteal phases. The results of the trial can further elucidate the effects of the menstrual cycle on smoking cessation outcomes and whether it is beneficial to combine menstrual cycle phase timing strategies with accessible and low-cost NRT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05515354. Registered on August 23, 2022.

The Impact of Older Age on Smoking Cessation Outcomes After Standard Advice to Quit

Older adults are a high priority population for smoking cessation. This study observed the influence of older age on the relationship between quitting predictors and cessation. Secondary analysis was conducted of a primary care trial of adults who smoke cigarettes randomized to standard advice to quit or advice plus 2 week supply of nicotine replacement therapy. Logistic regressions assessed interactions of age (<60 vs. ≥ 60 years) by predictors in relation to quit attempts and 6-month cessation controlling for treatment. Predicting quit attempts, there was an interaction of age by motivation (p = .025) and trend of age by nicotine dependence (p = .057). Predicting 6-month cessation, an interaction of age by motivation was observed (p = .020) and a trend of age by dependence (p = .067). For those with high nicotine dependence, older adults had less successful outcomes compared to younger counterparts. Yet among participants unmotivated to quit, older adults had more successful outcomes than those younger.

High levels of risk factors and poor secondary prevention for coronary heart disease patients in public hospitals: A descriptive repeated measures study

BACKGROUND

Secondary prevention is a priority after coronary revascularization for effective long-term cardiovascular care. Coronary Heart Disease is a major health problem in Jordan, but little is known about the current provision of secondary prevention.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors and explore the current provision of secondary Coronary Heart Disease prevention among patients presenting with first-time Coronary Heart Disease at two time points: during hospitalization (Time 1) and 6 months later (Time 2), in multicentre settings in Jordan.

METHODS

A descriptive, repeated measures research study design was applied to a consecutive sample of 180 patients with first-time Coronary Heart Disease. Demographic and clinical details were recorded from medical files. Self-administered questionnaires developed by the researchers were used to measure secondary prevention information related to Coronary Heart Disease, including secondary prevention services, lifestyle advice received and medical advice topics. A short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to measure physical activity. Participants were assessed at Times 1 and 2.

RESULTS

Unstructured lifestyle advice given to the patients at Times 1 and 2 most frequently related to medications, smoking, diet and blood lipids control advice topics, with no statistically significant improvement in cardiovascular risk factors among patients between Times 1 and 2.

CONCLUSION

Despite an extremely high prevalence of risk factors in this population, the provision of secondary prevention is poor in Jordan, which requires urgent improvement, and the contribution of nurses' to secondary prevention should be enhanced.

[Questions and Answers in Tobacco Smoking]

Smoking is an addictive, chronic and relapsing disease that, due to its high prevalence, morbidity and mortality, has become one of the main public health problems worldwide, affecting both smokers and rest of population involuntarily exposed to smoke tobacco.To overcome this pandemic, it is essential that all health professionals intervene on the problem in a manner adapted to their level of care, from giving brief advice for stop smoking to proposing intensive cognitive-behavioral and pharmacological treatment.Smoking cessation treatments have proven to be safe and effective, but unfortunately, the personal and economic resources dedicated to smoker care are not proportional to the magnitude of the problem, with few specialized consultations and lack of funding for pharmacological treatments.In addition, we must confront the arguments of the tobacco industry that interferes in the fight against smoking with new products that they pretend to offer as «harm reduction strategies» when really it is their way of attracting new addicts to tobacco products.

Conversational artificial intelligence interventions to support smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Conversational artificial intelligence (chatbots and dialogue systems) is an emerging tool for tobacco cessation that has the potential to emulate personalised human support and increase engagement. We aimed to determine the effect of conversational artificial intelligence interventions with or without standard tobacco cessation interventions on tobacco cessation outcomes among adults who smoke, compared to no intervention, placebo intervention or an active comparator.

Methods

A comprehensive search of six databases was completed in June 2022. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials published since 2005. The primary outcome was sustained tobacco abstinence, self-reported and/or biochemically validated, for at least 6 months. Secondary outcomes included point-prevalence abstinence and sustained abstinence of less than 6 months. Two authors independently extracted data on cessation outcomes and completed the risk of bias assessment. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted.

Results

From 819 studies, five randomised controlled trials met inclusion criteria (combined sample size n = 58,796). All studies differed in setting, methodology, intervention, participants and end-points. Interventions included chatbots embedded in multi- and single-component smartphone apps (n = 3), a social media-based (n = 1) chatbot, and an internet-based avatar (n = 1). Random effects meta-analysis of three studies found participants in the conversational artificial intelligence enhanced intervention were significantly more likely to quit smoking at 6-month follow-up compared to control group participants (RR = 1.29, 95% CI (1.13, 1.46), p < 0.001). Loss to follow up was generally high. Risk of bias was high overall.

Conclusion

We found limited but promising evidence on the effectiveness of conversational artificial intelligence interventions for tobacco cessation. Although all studies found benefits from conversational artificial intelligence interventions, results should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity. Given the rapid evolution and potential of artificial intelligence interventions, further well-designed randomised controlled trials following standardised reporting guidelines are warranted in this emerging area.

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.

A call to ban the sale of tobacco products

Tobacco is both toxic and addictive. Mounting evidence shows that tobacco use has a detrimental impact on almost every aspect of human health, causing or worsening deadly public health crises from the cancer epidemic to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, while tobacco use is a threat to both personal and public health, it continues to surge across the world, especially in China and other low- and middle-income countries. To this end, this article argues in favor of using a ban on the sale of all tobacco products as a practical solution to the global tobacco use epidemic. It is our hope that insights provided by our work will inspire swift policy actions in countries such as China and beyond to curb the tide of rising tobacco consumption, so that populations around the world could be better shielded from the pervasive and long-lasting damage that tobacco products cause or compound.

F, Deng X, Wang Y, Wang Z, Wu Y, Xu M, Yang C, Li X, Yang K. Pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective: A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials was conducted to investigate the effects of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation.

Methods: English databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. The risk of bias for the included trials was assessed using Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation.

Results: A total of 159 studies involving 60,285 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. The analysis involved 15 interventions and which yielded 105 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline was more helpful for smoking cessation than other monotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.16, 1.73)] and bupropion [OR = 1.52, 95% CI (1.22, 1.89)]. Furthermore, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy in achieving smoking cessation, such as varenicline plus bupropion over bupropion [OR = 2.00, 95% CI (1.11, 3.61)], varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy over nicotine replacement therapy [OR = 1.84, 95% CI (1.07, 3.18)], and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine over naltrexone [OR = 6.29, 95% CI (1.59, 24.90)]. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention.

Conclusion: Most pharmacological interventions demonstrated a benefit in smoking cessation compared with placebo, whether monotherapy or combination therapy. Moreover, confirmed evidence suggested that some combination treatments, such as varenicline plus bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine have a higher probability of being the best smoking cessation in

Patient survey examining the experience of care of a hospital-based opt-out tobacco dependency treatment service (the CURE Project)

INTRODUCTION

Treating tobacco dependency in patients admitted to hospital is a key priority in the National Health Service long-term plan. This service evaluation assessed the perception, needs and experience of care within an opt-out hospital-based tobacco dependency treatment service (the Conversation, Understand, Replace, Experts and Evidence Base (CURE) team) in North-West England.

METHODS

A survey was offered to all eligible patients between 1 July 2020 and 30 September 2020. Eligibility criteria were adult patients identified as an active smoker being approached by the CURE team as part of the standard opt-out service model, on a non-covid ward without a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection and able to read and write in English.

RESULTS

106 completed surveys were evaluated. Participants demonstrated high levels of tobacco dependency with an average of 37 years smoking history and 66% describing the onset of cravings within 30 min of hospital admission. The average number quit attempts in the previous 12 months was 1.3 but only 9% had used the most effective National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended treatments. 100% felt the opt-out service model was appropriate and 96% stated the treatment and support they had received had prompted them to consider a further quit attempt. 82% of participants rated their experience of care as 9/10 or 10/10. Participants wanted a broad range of support post discharge with the most popular option being with their general practitioner. 66% and 65% of participants would have been interested in a vaping kit as stop smoking intervention and support vaping-friendly hospital grounds respectively.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest this hospital-based, opt-out tobacco dependency treatment service delivers high-quality experience of care and meets the needs of the patients it serves. It also highlights the opportunity to enhance outcomes by providing access to NICE recommended most-effective interventions (varenicline, vaping and combination nicotine replacement therapy) and providing flexible, individualised discharge pathways.

Association Between Smoking Cessation Treatment and Healthcare Costs in a Single-Payer Public Healthcare System

INTRODUCTION

There has been little investigation of whether the clinical effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments translates into differences in healthcare costs, using real-world cost data, to determine whether anticipated benefits of smoking cessation treatment are being realized.

AIMS AND METHODS

We sought to determine the association between smoking cessation treatment and healthcare costs using linked administrative healthcare data. In total, 4752 patients who accessed a smoking cessation program in Ontario, Canada between July 2011 and December 2012 (treatment cohort) were each matched to a smoker who did not access these services (control cohort). The primary outcome was total healthcare costs in Canadian dollars, and secondary outcomes were sector-specific costs, from one year prior to the index date until December 31, 2017, or death. Costs were partitioned into four phases: pretreatment, treatment, posttreatment, and end-of-life for those who died.

RESULTS

Among females, total healthcare costs were similar between cohorts in pretreatment and posttreatment phases, but higher for the treatment cohort during the treatment phase ($4,554 vs. $3,237, p < .001). Among males, total healthcare costs were higher in the treatment cohort during pretreatment ($3,911 vs. $2,784, p < .001), treatment ($4,533 vs. $3,105, p < .001) and posttreatment ($5,065 vs. $3,922, p = .001) phases. End-of-life costs did not differ. Healthcare sector-specific costs followed a similar pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Five-year healthcare costs were similar between females who participated in a treatment program versus those that did not, with a transient increase during the treatment phase only. Among males, treatment was associated with persistently higher healthcare costs. Further study is needed to address the implications with respect to long-term costs.

IMPLICATIONS

The clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and behavioral smoking cessation treatments is well established, but whether such treatments are associated with healthcare costs, using real-world data, has received limited attention. Our findings suggest that the use of a smoking cessation treatment offered by their health system is associated with persistent higher healthcare costs among males but a transient increase among females. Given increasing access to evidence-based smoking cessation treatments is an important component in national tobacco control strategies, these data highlight the need for further exploration of the relations between smoking cessation treatment engagement and healthcare costs.

A randomised, crossover, clinical study to assess nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of the BIDI® stick ENDS compared with combustible cigarettes and a comparator ENDS in adult smokers

BACKGROUND

Nicotine pharmacokinetic assessments of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are crucial to understand their ability to provide an alternative to cigarette smoking. Subjective effects data also strongly contribute to this understanding. The BIDI® Stick is a disposable ENDS product which contains 59 mg/ml nicotine benzoate salt and various flavours.

METHODS

In this study, we assessed nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of 6 flavour variants of BIDI® Stick ENDS in adult smokers, compared to cigarettes and a comparator ENDS product. During each of eight study visits, 18 volunteer smoker subjects randomly used one of either their usual brand (UB) of cigarette, a BIDI® Stick ENDS, or a comparator ENDS (JUUL 59 mg/ml nicotine with Virginia Tobacco flavour), during both controlled (10 puffs, 30 s apart) and ad libitum (60 min) puffing sessions. Blood samples were collected at various time points and subjective effects questionnaires were administered.

RESULTS

Mean [SD] plasma nicotine Cmax 0-120 was not significantly different between BIDI® Stick ENDS with any flavour (range 15.3 [9.90] ng/ml for BIDI® Stick Winter to 17.6 [9.00] ng/ml for BIDI® Stick Classic) and UB cigarettes (16.2 [9.17] ng/ml). Mean [SD] AUC0-120 (range 569.7 [327.29] to 628.6 [408.99]  min*ng/ml for BIDI® Stick ENDS and 747.1 [325.48]  min*ng/ml for UB cigarettes) and median Tmax 0-120 (range 5-7 min for all BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes) values were also not significantly different between BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes, while subjective effects measures were also similar between BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes. Mean [SD] plasma nicotine Cmax 0-120, AUC0-120, and median Tmax 0-120 were 6.8 [4.13] ng/ml, 243.6 [179.04] min*ng/ml, and 5 min, respectively, for JUUL ENDS. These values were significantly different compared with those for all BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes for both Cmax 0-120 and AUC0-120 but not for Tmax 0-120.

CONCLUSIONS

BIDI® Stick ENDS delivered nicotine to users comparably to their UB combustible cigarette and higher than JUUL ENDS, and also elicited similar subjective effects such as satisfaction and relief. Thus, the BIDI® Stick ENDS may be a satisfying alternative to cigarettes among current smokers and may support their transitioning away from cigarette smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier number NCT05072925).

Electronic cigarettes versus nicotine patches for smoking cessation in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial

Nicotine replacement therapy, in the form of nicotine patches, is commonly offered to pregnant women who smoke to help them to stop smoking, but this approach has limited efficacy in this population. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are also used by pregnant women who smoke but their safety and efficacy in pregnancy are unknown. Here, we report the results of a randomized controlled trial in 1,140 participants comparing refillable e-cigarettes with nicotine patches. Pregnant women who smoked were randomized to e-cigarettes (n = 569) or nicotine patches (n = 571). In the unadjusted analysis of the primary outcome, validated prolonged quit rates at the end of pregnancy in the two study arms were not significantly different (6.8% versus 4.4% in the e-cigarette and patch arms, respectively; relative risk (RR) = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.95-2.53, P = 0.08). However, some participants in the nicotine patch group also used e-cigarettes during the study. In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding abstinent participants who used non-allocated products, e-cigarettes were more effective than patches (6.8% versus 3.6%; RR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.14-3.26, P = 0.02). Safety outcomes included adverse events and maternal and birth outcomes. The safety profile was found to be similar for both study products, however, low birthweight (<2,500 g) was less frequent in the e-cigarette arm (14.8% versus 9.6%; RR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.47-0.90, P = 0.01). Other adverse events and birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms. E-cigarettes might help women who are pregnant to stop smoking, and their safety for use in pregnancy is similar to that of nicotine patches. ISRCTN62025374.

2022 Prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases in Of the Russian Federation. National guidelines

.

[Analysis on the relationship between urbanization and health behavior in China: An empirical research based on China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS)]

OBJECTIVE

To explore the relationship between urbanization and residents ' health behaviors in China, and to clarify the impact of urbanization on health behaviors.

METHODS

Based on China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), we established a panel data fixed effect model tracked in 2011, 2013 and 2015 to analyze the effect of urbanization level on smoking cessation, drinking, sleep quality and physical exercise behavior. The ratio of population density, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and output value of secondary and tertiary industries to GDP were used to represent the levels of urbanization.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2015, China ' s urbanization levels showed an increasing trend, which showed that the ratio of population density, GDP per capita and output value of secondary and tertiary industries in GDP increased year by year. Smoking cessation increased with the increase of GDP per capita and the proportion of the output value of secondary and tertiary industries. Compared with the low-level, the drinking rate in the regions with per capita GDP of more than 45 000 yuan increased by 2.49%, and the drinking rate in the regions with secondary and tertiary industries for 80%-85% decreased by 2.48%. However, there was no significant difference with population density. The sleep quality decreased with the increase of per capita GDP. In regions where per capita GDP was more than 93%, the sleep quality decreased by 3.71% compared with the low-level which was not significantly different from the ratio of population density and the output value of secondary and tertiary industries. For low contrast, the exercise rate in regions with the population density of 400-600 people/km² and over 800 people/km² was reduced by 5.2% and 7.7% respectively. The exercise rate in regions with per capita GDP of 25 000-35 000 yuan and over 45 000 yuan was reduced by 3.26% and 3.73% respectively. The exercise rate in regions with secondary and tertiary industries accounting for more than 93% of GDP was 10.68% lower than that of the low-level regions.

CONCLUSION

Different dimensions of urbanization have different impacts on different health behaviors. The smoking cessation rate increases with the increase of urbanization level, which is related to the proportion of per capita GDP and the output value of secondary and tertiary industries. The exercise rate, related to the three dimensions, decreases with the increase of urbanization. Sleep quality is more closely related to per capita GDP, and the probability of good sleep quality decreases with the increase of urbanization level. However, there is no obvious trend between drinking rate and urbanization level, which needs further study.

[Analysis on the relationship between urbanization and health behavior in China: An empirical research based on China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS)]

OBJECTIVE

To explore the relationship between urbanization and residents ' health behaviors in China, and to clarify the impact of urbanization on health behaviors.

METHODS

Based on China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), we established a panel data fixed effect model tracked in 2011, 2013 and 2015 to analyze the effect of urbanization level on smoking cessation, drinking, sleep quality and physical exercise behavior. The ratio of population density, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and output value of secondary and tertiary industries to GDP were used to represent the levels of urbanization.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2015, China ' s urbanization levels showed an increasing trend, which showed that the ratio of population density, GDP per capita and output value of secondary and tertiary industries in GDP increased year by year. Smoking cessation increased with the increase of GDP per capita and the proportion of the output value of secondary and tertiary industries. Compared with the low-level, the drinking rate in the regions with per capita GDP of more than 45 000 yuan increased by 2.49%, and the drinking rate in the regions with secondary and tertiary industries for 80%-85% decreased by 2.48%. However, there was no significant difference with population density. The sleep quality decreased with the increase of per capita GDP. In regions where per capita GDP was more than 93%, the sleep quality decreased by 3.71% compared with the low-level which was not significantly different from the ratio of population density and the output value of secondary and tertiary industries. For low contrast, the exercise rate in regions with the population density of 400-600 people/km2 and over 800 people/km2 was reduced by 5.2% and 7.7% respectively. The exercise rate in regions with per capita GDP of 25 000-35 000 yuan and over 45 000 yuan was reduced by 3.26% and 3.73% respectively. The exercise rate in regions with secondary and tertiary industries accounting for more than 93% of GDP was 10.68% lower than that of the low-level regions.

CONCLUSION

Different dimensions of urbanization have different impacts on different health behaviors. The smoking cessation rate increases with the increase of urbanization level, which is related to the proportion of per capita GDP and the output value of secondary and tertiary industries. The exercise rate, related to the three dimensions, decreases with the increase of urbanization. Sleep quality is more closely related to per capita GDP, and the probability of good sleep quality decreases with the increase of urbanization level. However, there is no obvious trend between drinking rate and urbanization level, which needs further study.

Tobacco and nicotine use

Tobacco smoking is a major determinant of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide. More than a billion people smoke, and without major increases in cessation, at least half will die prematurely from tobacco-related complications. In addition, people who smoke have a significant reduction in their quality of life. Neurobiological findings have identified the mechanisms by which nicotine in tobacco affects the brain reward system and causes addiction. These brain changes contribute to the maintenance of nicotine or tobacco use despite knowledge of its negative consequences, a hallmark of addiction. Effective approaches to screen, prevent and treat tobacco use can be widely implemented to limit tobacco's effect on individuals and society. The effectiveness of psychosocial and pharmacological interventions in helping people quit smoking has been demonstrated. As the majority of people who smoke ultimately relapse, it is important to enhance the reach of available interventions and to continue to develop novel interventions. These efforts associated with innovative policy regulations (aimed at reducing nicotine content or eliminating tobacco products) have the potential to reduce the prevalence of tobacco and nicotine use and their enormous adverse impact on population health.

Optimal use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy

The most effective intervention for stopping smoking is a combination of professional counselling and pharmacotherapy. Medicines are recommended for all smokers who are motivated to quit and are nicotine dependent. Combination nicotine replacement therapy with a patch and an oral product is more effective than the patch alone. An adequate dose of nicotine must be used for an adequate duration. Varenicline is the most effective oral drug. It is safe in people with stable mental illness. Vaping nicotine is a second-line treatment which can be considered for smokers who are unable to quit with other methods.

Smoking Cessation

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and its harms are well established. Physicians have more evidence-based resources than ever before to effectively treat smoking, including new uses and combinations of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacotherapies and expanded community programs. In addition, electronic nicotine delivery systems are potential treatment tools, but their safety and efficacy need to be established. Finally, high-priority groups, such as persons with cancer diagnoses or hospitalized patients, may benefit from particular attention to their tobacco use.

Prevalence and characteristics of ever regular use of non-combustible nicotine for 1 year or more: a population survey in England

INTRODUCTION

Up-to-date monitoring of non-combustible nicotine products (e.g. e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapies (NRT), heated tobacco products (HTP); NNP) is important to assess their impact. To date, there is little evidence on the association between ever regular use (defined here as 1 year or more) of NNP and current smoking status.

AIMS/METHODS

The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence, and sociodemographic, alcohol and smoking status correlates, of ever regular use of NNP in England in 2020. A cross-sectional survey of adults in England was conducted between February and June 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 8486 adults were surveyed; 94.9% (8055) were complete cases. The weighted prevalence of ever regular NNP use was 5.4% (n = 436; 95% CI 5.0-6.0), of which 82% (n = 360; 95% CI 78.7-85.8) was single and 18% (n = 79; 95% CI 14.8-22) multiple product use. Amongst ever regular NNP users, the prevalence of ever regular NRT, e-cigarette and HTP use was 64.7% (95% CI 60.1-69), 43.4% (95% CI 38.8-48) and 2.5% (95% CI 1.4-4.5), respectively. In adjusted analysis, ever regular NNP use was associated with smoking status, being significantly higher among current (22.3%; adjusted OR (aOR) 34.9, 95% CI 24.0-50.8) and ex-smokers (12.7%, aOR 19.8, 95% CI 11.1-14.4) than among never-smokers (0.6%). More advantaged occupational grade (aOR, 1.27 95% CI 1.02-1.57) and at least hazardous alcohol use (aOR, 1.38 95% CI 1.06-1.78) were associated with greater prevalence of ever regular NNP use.

CONCLUSIONS

Ever regularly using NNP was highest among smokers and ex-smokers and rare among never-smokers. Among people who have ever regularly used NNP, NRT is the most popular.

The relationship of smoking to cg05575921 methylation in blood and saliva DNA samples from several studies

Numerous studies have shown that cg05575921 methylation decreases in response to smoking. However, secondary to methodological issues, the magnitude and dose dependency of that response is as of yet unclear. This lack of certainty is a barrier to the use of DNA methylation clinically to assess and monitor smoking status. To better define this relationship, we conducted a joint analysis of methylation sensitive PCR digital (MSdPCR) assessments of cg05575921 methylation in whole blood and/or saliva DNA to smoking using samples from 421 smokers and 423 biochemically confirmed non-smokers from 4 previously published studies. We found that cg05575921 methylation manifested a curvilinear dose dependent decrease in response to increasing cigarette consumption. In whole blood DNA, the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Area Under the Curve (AUC) of cg05575921 methylation for predicting daily smoking status was 0.98. In saliva DNA, the gross AUC was 0.91 with correction for cellular heterogeneity improving the AUC to 0.94. Methylation status was significantly associated with the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence score, but with significant sampling heterogeneity. We conclude that MSdPCR assessments of cg05575921 methylation are a potentially powerful, clinically implementable tool for the assessment and management of smoking.

Effects of Combined Varenicline With Nicotine Patch and of Extended Treatment Duration on Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Smoking cessation medications are routinely used in health care. Research suggests that combining varenicline with the nicotine patch, extending the duration of varenicline treatment, or both, may increase cessation effectiveness.

Objective

To compare combinations of varenicline plus the nicotine or placebo patch vs combinations used for either 12 weeks (standard duration) or 24 weeks (extended duration).

Design, Settings, and Participants

Double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial conducted from November 11, 2017, to July 9, 2020, at 1 research clinic in Madison, Wisconsin, and at 1 clinic in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Of the 5836 adults asked to participate in the study, 1251 who smoked 5 cigarettes/d or more were randomized.

Interventions

All participants received cessation counseling and were randomized to 1 of 4 medication groups: varenicline monotherapy for 12 weeks (n = 315), varenicline plus nicotine patch for 12 weeks (n = 314), varenicline monotherapy for 24 weeks (n = 311), or varenicline plus nicotine patch for 24 weeks (n = 311).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks.

Results

Among 1251 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 49.1 [11.9] years; 675 [54.0%] women), 751 (60.0%) completed treatment and 881 (70.4%) provided final follow-up. For the primary outcome, there was no significant interaction between the 2 treatment factors of medication type and medication duration (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.17]; P = .66). For patients randomized to 24-week vs 12-week treatment duration, the primary outcome occurred in 24.8% (154/622) vs 24.3% (153/629), respectively (risk difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -5.2% to 4.3%]; OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.15]). For patients randomized to varenicline combination therapy vs varenicline monotherapy, the primary outcome occurred in 24.3% (152/625) vs 24.8% (155/626), respectively (risk difference, 0.4% [95% CI, -4.3% to 5.2%]; OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.12]). Nausea occurrence ranged from 24.0% to 30.9% and insomnia occurrence ranged from 24.4% to 30.5% across the 4 groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among adults smoking 5 cigarettes/d or more, there were no significant differences in 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks among those treated with combined varenicline plus nicotine patch therapy vs varenicline monotherapy, or among those treated for 24 weeks vs 12 weeks. These findings do not support the use of combined therapy or of extended treatment duration.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03176784.

The Usability of an Online Tool to Promote the Use of Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Interventions

To increase usage of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (EBSCIs) among smokers, an online decision aid (DA) was developed. The aims of this study were (1) to conduct a usability evaluation; (2) to conduct a program evaluation and evaluate decisional conflict after using the DA and (3) to determine the possible change in the intention to use EBSCIs before and directly after reviewing the DA. A cross-sectional study was carried out in September 2020 by recruiting smokers via the Internet (n = 497). Chi-squared tests and t-tests were conducted to test the differences between smokers who differed in the perceived usability of the DA on the program evaluation and in decisional conflict. The possible changes in intention to use EBSCIs during a cessation attempt before and after reviewing the DA were tested using t-tests, McNemar's test and χ2 analysis. The participants evaluated the usability of the DA as moderate (MU; n = 393, 79.1%) or good (GU; n = 104, 20.9%). GU smokers rated higher on all the elements of the program evaluation and experienced less decisional conflict, but also displayed a higher intention to quit. After reviewing the DA, the participants on average had a significantly higher intention to use more EBSCIs, in particular in the form of eHealth. Recommendations to make the DA more usable could include tailoring, using video-based information and including value clarification methods. Furthermore, a hybrid variant in which smokers can use the DA independently and with the guidance of a primary care professional could aid both groups in choosing a fitting EBSCI option.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2').

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk.  An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study  found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I² = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I² = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I² = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I² = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I² = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I² = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I² = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I² = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I² = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I² = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I² = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I² = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I² = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety Profile of Alternative Tobacco and Nicotine Products for Smoking Reduction and Cessation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Alternative tobacco and nicotine products such as electronic cigarettes (EC), smokeless tobacco, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) are currently being assessed as options in tobacco harm reduction due to their potential role in smoking reduction and smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE

To provide the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of various alternative tobacco and nicotine products for smoking reduction and cessation.

METHODS

A systematic review using databases from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 2020 to identify eligible experimental and observational studies assessing the use of alternative tobacco and nicotine products on smoking reduction and smoking cessation and the safety of these products. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and ROBINS-I tools were used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Results were described through a narrative synthesis of the evidence.

RESULTS

From 1955 retrieved references, 44 studies (31 randomized controlled trials/RCTs and 13 prospective cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Twenty-nine studies were assessing EC, one study evaluated heat-not-burn (HNB) product, five studies were focused on snus, and nine studies assessed NRT in the form of nicotine patch, gum, etc. The overall results suggested that alternative tobacco and nicotine products in the form of EC, snus, and NRT can moderately reduce daily cigarette consumption and has potential to assist smoking cessation attempts, with fewer adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggested that alternative tobacco and nicotine products have a potential role in assisting smoking reduction and cessation, highlighting their role in the tobacco harm reduction approach. Further studies should focus on investigating long-term outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of alternative tobacco and nicotine products to better inform smoking reduction/cessation policy.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020205830.

Application of Automated Text Analysis to Examine Emotions Expressed in Online Support Groups for Quitting Smoking

Online support groups offer social support and an outlet for expressing emotions when dealing with health-related challenges. This study examines whether automated text analysis of emotional expressions using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) can identify emotions related to abstinence expressed in online support groups for quitting smoking, suggesting promise for offering targeted mood management to members. The emotional expressions in 1 month of posts by members of 36 online support groups were related to abstinence at month end. Using the available LIWC dictionary, posts were scored for overall positive emotions, overall negative emotions, anxiety, anger, sadness, and an upbeat emotional tone. Greater expressions of negative emotions, and specifically anxiety, related to nonabstinence, while a more upbeat emotional tone related to abstinence. The results indicate that automated text analysis can identify emotions expressed in online support groups for quitting smoking and enable targeted delivery of mood management to group members.

Pharmacokinetic Characterization of a Prototype Mini Nicotine Lozenge

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking remains a substantial public health problem. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is an effective treatment that increases the success of a quit attempt. There are different NRT formats with no difference in efficacy, but their pharmaceutical form or route of administration may translate into individual preferences. A novel prototype mini lozenge was developed to offer smokers a new NRT option to aid in their quit attempt. Two studies were conducted to characterize the pharmacokinetic parameters and to evaluate its bioequivalence to a commercially available nicotine mini lozenge.

METHODS

Two randomized, open-label, crossover studies were conducted to evaluate either the 2 or 4 mg dose level. Heavy smokers in otherwise good health were randomly assigned to one of two treatment sequences: the prototype mini lozenge followed by a commercially available mini lozenge, or the converse. After a 5 to 7 day washout period, subjects crossed over to receive the other study treatment. Blood sampling occurred pre- and post-dose nicotine and was assessed using a validated solid-phase extraction with ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. The primary endpoint was bioequivalence as determined by maximal plasma nicotine concentration (C_max) and the extent of nicotine absorption (AUC_0-t and AUC_0-∞). The secondary endpoints included the time to C_max (T_max), half-life, the elimination constant (K_el), and safety.

RESULTS

The prototype mini lozenge was bioequivalent to the commercially available mini lozenge, with no significant difference in C_max, AUC_0-t, or AUC_0-∞ or any of the secondary outcomes. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was throat irritation, of which all cases were mild in severity. There were no serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The prototype mini lozenge is bioequivalent to a commercially available mini lozenge and may provide smokers with a new oral NRT option to aid in smoking cessation and of tobacco dependence through the relief of nicotine withdrawal symptoms, including cravings.