Inhalation of vapor from black pepper extract reduces smoking withdrawal symptoms

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Alleviation of acute stress response by black pepper aroma administration

BACKGROUND

Black pepper is one of the most popular spices globally. As black pepper essential oil has not yet been used in the context of aromatherapy, this study examined the effect of black pepper aroma on cardiac and peripheral autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity under stressful conditions using an olfactometer to administer aroma in a precise and controlled manner to ensure reproducibility.

METHODS

A within-participant design experiment was conducted with 20 male university students who performed a 30-min calculation task as a short-term stressor under three aroma conditions: black pepper, ginger, and dipropylene glycol (DPG) (scentless air as a control). Each aroma was sporadically delivered (first 20 s of each 1-min interval) with the olfactometer during the task. Electrocardiograms and skin conductance level (SCL) were measured to evaluate ANS's physiological acute stress response. Subjective evaluations for the given stressful task and impressions on the types of aromas were assessed.

RESULTS

The physiological acute stress response induced by the short-term stressor, which is characterized by the enhancement of the heart rate (HR) and SCL and decreases in the heart rate variability (HRV), was suppressed with black pepper: the increase in HR and reduction in HRV from the baseline were 38.9% (p = 0.048 when compared with DPG) and 32.9% smaller (p = 0.002 for multiple comparisons) than those in DPG, respectively, and the increase of SCL was 15.5% smaller (p = 0.005 for multiple comparisons) than that in ginger. However, there was no significant difference in subjective scores among the conditions.

CONCLUSION

Although black pepper is a stimulative agent, the study findings showed that black pepper aroma alleviated the physiological acute stress response, which can be beneficial in aromatherapy under stressful conditions.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine/Therapy for Tobacco Cessation in India: A Secondary Analysis of GATS-1 and 2

Background

India has nearly 267 million adult tobacco users, with a slowly improving quitting rate. Among the many approaches to quitting the habit, such as counseling, nicotine replacement therapy, nicotine patch or gum, and prescribed allopathic medicines. Complementary and alternative medicine/therapy (CAM), a thousand-year-old practice in India, may also prove to be a potential method in tobacco cessation; however, there is scarce literature on the extent of use of CAM among tobacco users who attempt to quit the habit. Therefore, this study attempts to examine the potential of CAM as a strategy for tobacco control in India.

Material and Methods

We undertook a secondary analysis of the data from both rounds of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS 2009 and 2016). The dependent variable included in the analysis was the use of traditional medicine as a method for quitting tobacco in three types of users-smokers, smokeless tobacco users, and dual users. The prevalence of CAM use was reported, and Chi-square test was applied to find the factors significantly associated with the use of CAM among tobacco users considering a P value of 0.05 to be statistically significant.

Results

The overall prevalence of traditional medicine use for GATS-1 was observed to be more among dual users (4%), while for GATS-2, it was highest among smokers (3%). For both rounds of the GATS survey, the use of traditional medicine was found to be higher among males, rural residents, users with no education or less than primary education, and the eastern region.

Conclusions

CAM has a promising potential for supporting tobacco cessation provided a concerted effort is undertaken to standardize pharmacopeia and establish robust clinical evidence. In addition, there is a need to create awareness, build the capacity of healthcare providers, and foster academic-industrial research in indigenous Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy (AYUSH) systems.

Role of Herbal Medication in Tobacco Cessation Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Literature reports randomized trials have examined herbal drugs and other smoking cessation therapies such as aromatherapy acupuncture but no comprehensive overview of the overall results has been provided. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to describe the overall effectiveness and safety of herbal medicines.

METHODS

This study was conducted from December 2020 to April 2021 by searching seven databases. Herbal drugs have been shown to help people quit smoking in randomized controlled studies. Two teams of researchers independently extracted the data.

FINDINGS

A total of 12 trials with 762 smokers were included in this study. The heterogeneity I2 was 43.6% with P=0.03 (Cochrane Q test) and χ2=15.77. The overall odds ratio (OR) at 95% confidence interval (CI) was 0.91 (0.68- 1.20) which shows a protective factor of herbal preparations and very low heterogeneity. The herbal treatments such as Vernonia cinerea, St. John's Wort, and lavender essential oil were significantly related to a higher continuous abstinence rate (CAR) compared to the controls with risk ratio (RR): 2.13 (0.57-4.61) at week 8; RR: 2.72 (0.77-5.3) at week 12; and RR: 2.77 (0.37-1.13) at week 24. A 7-day point abstinence rate (PAR) at week 8 was RR: 1.24 (0.81-6.34) with 95% CI; RR: 2.09 (0.93-8.29) at week 12, and RR: 2.11 (0.3-3.08) at week 24. Black pepper and lime were better in craving reduction than the placebo group. This study found no significant difference between the treatment and control groups in adverse effects, despite some minor side effects with herbal drugs.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed herbal treatments have the potential to help smokers quit the habit. Further well-designed trials comparing standardized herbal medicines with conventional therapy and placebo are recommended to reinforce this data.

Effects of β -caryophyllene, A Dietary Cannabinoid, in Animal Models of Drug Addiction

BACKGROUND

β-caryophyllene (BCP) is a natural bicyclic sesquiterpene found in Cannabis and other plants. BCP is currently used as a food additive, although pharmacological studies suggest its potential therapeutic application for the treatment of certain brain disorders. The mechanisms of action of BCP remain uncertain, possibly including full agonism at the cannabinoid CB2 receptor (CB2R).

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to investigate BCP's potential as a new drug for the treatment of substance use disorders by reviewing preclinical studies with animal models.

RESULTS

BCP has been investigated in behavioral paradigms, including drug self-administration, conditioned place preference, and intracranial self-stimulation; the drugs tested were cocaine, nicotine, alcohol, and methamphetamine. Remarkably, BCP prevented or reversed behavioral changes resulting from drug exposure. As expected, the mechanism of action entails CB2R activation, although this is unlikely to constitute the only molecular target to explain such effects. Another potential target is the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor.

CONCLUSION

Preclinical studies have reported promising results with BCP in animal models of substance use disorders. Further research, including studies in humans, are warranted to establish its therapeutic potential and its mechanisms of action.

Black Pepper (Piper nigrum) for Tobacco Withdrawal: A Case Report

Tobacco use continues to be one of humanity’s most significant public health concerns, causing more than 8-million deaths annually. Existing treatments for tobacco use disorder are limited in efficacy and there is a strong need for identifying effective novel treatments. Small clinical trials indicate that black pepper (Piper nigrum) essential oil may be helpful for treating nicotine withdrawal and craving. However, we are unaware of any cases reporting the use of black pepper for these purposes in nonresearch settings. Here we present the case of a patient who inhaled combusted black pepper to self-medicate nicotine withdrawal when lacking access to tobacco cigarettes while incarcerated. Based on our patient’s report, inhalation of combusted black pepper may have alleviated his tobacco withdrawal and cravings by reducing his automatic motor urge to smoke, quelling withdrawal-associated anxiety, and mimicking the sensorimotor experience of smoking tobacco cigarettes. Notably, our patient reported that inhalation of combusted black pepper for treatment of nicotine craving and withdrawal was common in his correctional facility. Though combusted black pepper is highly unlikely to be an appealing treatment outside of a correctional setting, this case suggests that further investigation of vaporized black pepper essential oil for tobacco cessation may be warranted.

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.

Chemosensory Contributions of E-Cigarette Additives on Nicotine Use

While rates of smoking combustible cigarettes in the United States have trended down in recent years, use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has dramatically increased, especially among adolescents. The vast majority of e-cigarette users consume "flavored" products that contain a variety of chemosensory-rich additives, and recent literature suggests that these additives have led to the current "teen vaping epidemic." This review, covering research from both human and rodent models, provides a comprehensive overview of the sensory implications of e-cigarette additives and what is currently known about their impact on nicotine use. In doing so, we specifically address the oronasal sensory contributions of e-cigarette additives. Finally, we summarize the existing gaps in the field and highlight future directions needed to better understand the powerful influence of these additives on nicotine use.

Psychological Effects of Aromatherapy on Smokers With Depressive Tendencies During Smoking Cessation Treatment: Protocol for a Pre-Post Single-Arm Clinical Trial

Background

Cessation of smoking can markedly reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease, improve health economics, and benefit society. Aromatherapy has the potential to be a novel option as an adjuvant therapy for smoking cessation that may alleviate depressive symptoms. However, research on the efficacy of aromatherapy as an adjuvant therapy for smoking cessation is scarce.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the potential effects of aromatherapy on psychological states in smokers with depressive tendencies and to determine if it is reasonable to proceed to the next step (ie, a phase III trial).

Methods

This is a pre-post single-arm clinical trial. Smokers with depression will be subjected to aromatherapy during smoking cessation treatment for 12 weeks. We will evaluate changes in scores on the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale and the Profile of Mood States from pretreatment screening to 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the start of aromatherapy. Moreover, we will compare the group treated with aromatherapy with the group that received standard treatment in our previous randomized controlled trial (ie, the control group in that study). Furthermore, we will compare successful smoking cessation rates after 12 weeks. In addition, we will conduct an exploratory analysis of the efficacy of aromatherapy. The target sample size is 100, which is the number of subjects expected to be enrolled in this study during the 2-year study period.

Results

This study was approved by the Kyoto Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB approval No. 19-016). Enrollment started on July 1, 2019. As of May 2022, 76 patients have been recruited. In the original plan, recruitment should have been finished on June 30, 2021. However, the number of subjects decreased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the study inclusion period was extended by 1 year (ie, until the end of June 2022) with the approval of the IRB on May 17, 2021. Analyses of the results will be completed subsequently.

Conclusions

This study has some limitations. This is not a rigorous validation study because it compares the same subjects who received standard treatment in a previous study. Moreover, the sample size and methods of statistical analysis were not fully set with prior consideration of statistical rigor. To address these limitations, we plan to conduct a phase III trial that will reflect the exploratory findings of this study. This is the first study to evaluate the psychological effects of aromatherapy during a smoking cessation program, and it may help improve the quality of treatment for smoking cessation in the future.

Trial Registration

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000043102; https://tinyurl.com/tn3hvt9w

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/38626

Self-treatment attempt of tobacco use disorder with Melissa officinalis: a case report and brief review of literature

In the treatment of tobacco use disorder, current approaches focus on pharmacotherapy, nicotine replacement, and psychotherapy. However, traditional treatments have been widely used in societies for the purpose of smoking cessation for years. Although cases using traditional herbs in the self-treatment of addiction have been reported in the literature, studies on this subject are very limited. Research on certain herbs shows that they may be effective in the treatment of tobacco use disorder by different mechanisms, however, there is no evidence that they are safe to consume as cigarettes. This article aims to question the place of traditional herbs in tobacco use disorder treatment through a case who started to smoke Melissa officinalis herb to help his nicotine withdrawal.

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.

Current controversies in medical cannabis: Recent developments in human clinical applications and potential therapeutics

Knowledge about the therapeutic potential of medical cannabis has greatly improved over the past decade, with an ever-increasing range of developments in human clinical applications. A growing body of scientific evidence supports the use of medical cannabis products for some therapeutic indications, whilst for others, the evidence base remains disputed. For this narrative review, we incorporate areas where the current evidence base is substantial, such as intractable childhood epilepsy and multiple sclerosis, as well as areas where the evidence is still controversial, such as PTSD and anxiety. We provide a high-level summary of current developments using findings from recent major reviews, as well as real world evidence (RWE), including global database registries and other patient reported outcomes (PROs). On the one hand, our strongest empirical data supports the use of cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) for conditions with relatively small patient numbers. Yet on the other hand, the conditions, where the highest patient numbers present, often have debatable clinical evidence but good RWE, incorporating PROs of 1000s of patients. The discord between PROs and the respective strength of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) highlights the urgent need for further research. The scientific literature examining the efficacy of medical cannabis for many conditions is still developing, whilst large numbers of patients globally have been successfully using medical cannabis to treat a broad range of conditions. We conclude on the importance of systematically developing RWE databases to supplement RCTs and to bridge the current evidence gaps.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Antischistosomal Activity of Zingiber officinale, Piper nigrum, and Coriandrum sativum Aqueous Plant Extracts on Hamster Infected with Schistosoma mansoni

Schistosomiasis continues to affect the health and quality of life of millions of people around the world. Schistosomiasis has been ranked the second disease after malaria in terms of importance as a targeted tropical disease. Praziquantel (PZQ) is the only drug approved by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the treatment of schistosomiasis. Being the only drug, parasite resistance to this drug has developed. Therefore, the search for new alternatives has been the goal of many researchers. In this study, the effects of aqueous extracts of Zingiber officinale, Piper nigrum, and Coriandrum sativum on Schistosoma mansoni infected golden hamsters (Egyptian strain) were evaluated in vitro and in vivo at different doses of 500, 250, 125, 62.5, and 31.25 μg/ml. In vitro, adult worms of S. mansoni were tested in RPMI-1640 medium for 48 hrs. The results showed that the concentrations 500, 250, and 125 μg/ml of Zingiber officinale and Piper nigrum caused dead of 100% of adult worms within 6 and 12 hrs of incubation, respectively. Although, aqueous extract of Coriandrum sativum at concentrations 500, 250, and 125 μg/ml resulted dead of 100% parasites after 12 to 24 hrs of incubation. In conclusion, Zingiber officinale and Piper nigrum showed efficacy against schistosomiasis in both in vitro and biological experiments of Egyptian schistosome strain, while Coriandrum sativum gave less effective results than the previous ones. Therefore, Zingiber officinale and Piper nigrum may become an innovative treatment for schistosomiasis.

Sensory experiences and cues among E-cigarette users

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We characterized the extent and quality of respiratory sensations and sensory-related smoking cues associated with e-cigarette use among those who failed to quit combustible tobacco cigarette (CTC) use with traditional FDA approved medications but succeeded in doing so with e-cigarettes. Further, we sought to understand former smokers' perceptions about the influence of sensory experience with e-cigarette use on CTC cessation outcomes.

METHODS

A nonrandom purposive sample of 156 participants recruited in the USA through the Consumer Advocates for Smoke Free Alternatives Association Facebook page completed an online cross-sectional survey to assess sensory experiences and smoking cues associated with e-cigarette use. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc testing and the two-sample t test/Wilcoxon rank-sum test, as appropriate based on distribution, were used to assess the association between sample characteristics and sensory experiences and cues using investigator constructed questions, the Modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire (mCEQ) and the Smoking Cue Appeal Survey (SCAS).

RESULTS

With e-cigarette use, participants reported feeling the vapor in their throats, windpipes, noses, lungs, and on their tongues; reductions in nicotine craving; and enjoyment of their e-cigarette, including tasting, smelling, and seeing the vapor and touching the device. Women had greater craving reduction than men (p = 0.023). Those who began smoking at 13 years of age or younger had more satisfaction and had greater sensory enjoyment than those who began smoking at 16-17 years of age (p = 0.015 and p = 0.026, respectively), as well as greater sensory enjoyment than those who began smoking at 14-15 years of age (p = 0.047). There was a significant overall association between the number of years a respondent smoked and e-cigarette sensory enjoyment (p = 0.038). Participants 18-34 years old rated e-cigarettes as being more pleasant compared to 45 + years olds, (p = 0.012). Eighty-four percent of participants reported the sensation of the vapor as important in quitting CTCs, and 91% believed the sensations accompanying e-cigarette use contributed to their smoking cessation success.

CONCLUSIONS

For those who failed to quit previously using approved cessation medications to stop smoking cigarettes, sensory experiences associated with e-cigarette use may help smokers quit 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. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

β-Caryophyllene, a dietary terpenoid, inhibits nicotine taking and nicotine seeking in rodents

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

β-Caryophyllene (BCP) is a plant-derived terpenoid used as a food additive for many decades. Recent studies indicate that BCP is a cannabinoid CB₂ receptor agonist with medical benefits for a number of human diseases. However, little is known about its therapeutic potential for drug abuse and addiction.

EXPERIMENT APPROACH

We used pharmacological, transgenic, and optogenetic approaches to systematically evaluate the effects of BCP on nicotine-taking and nicotine-seeking behaviour in animal models of drug self-administration, electrical, and optical brain-stimulation reward.

KEY RESULTS

Systemic administration of BCP dose-dependently inhibited nicotine self-administration and motivation for nicotine seeking in rats and mice. The reduction in nicotine self-administration was blocked by AM630, a selective CB₂ receptor antagonist, but not by AM251, a selective CB₁ receptor antagonist, suggesting involvement of a CB₂ receptor mechanism. Genetic deletion of CB₂ receptors in mice blocked the reduction in nicotine self-administration produced only by low doses, but not by high doses, of BCP, suggesting involvement of both CB₂ and non-CB₂ receptor mechanisms. Furthermore, in the intracranial self-stimulation paradigm, BCP attenuated electrical brain-stimulation reward and nicotine-enhanced brain-stimulation reward in rats. Lastly, BCP also attenuated brain-stimulation reward maintained by optogenetic stimulation of dopaminergic neurons in the ventral tegmental area in DAT-cre mice, suggesting the involvement of a dopamine-dependent mechanism in BCP's action.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The present findings suggest that BCP has significant anti-nicotine effects via both CB₂ and non-CB₂ receptor mechanisms and, therefore, deserves further study as a potential new pharmacotherapy for cigarette smoking cessation.

Volatiles of Black Pepper Fruits (Piper nigrum L.)

Black pepper (Piper nigrum) is historically one of the most important spices and herbal medicines, and is now cultivated in tropical regions worldwide. The essential oil of black pepper fruits has shown a myriad of biological activities and is a commercially important commodity. In this work, five black pepper essential oils from eastern coastal region of Madagascar and six black pepper essential oils from the Amazon region of Brazil were obtained by hydrodistillation and analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The major components of the essential oils were α-pinene, sabinene, β-pinene, δ-3-carene, limonene, and β-caryophyllene. A comparison of the Madagascar and Brazilian essential oils with black pepper essential oils from various geographical regions reported in the literature was carried out. A hierarchical cluster analysis using the data obtained in this study and those reported in the literature revealed four clearly defined clusters based on the relative concentrations of the major components.

Piperine-A Major Principle of Black Pepper: A Review of Its Bioactivity and Studies

Piperine is the main compound present in black pepper, and is the carrier of its specific pungent taste, which is responsible for centuries of human dietary utilization and worldwide popularity as a food ingredient. Along with the application as a food ingredient and food preservative, it is used in traditional medicine for many purposes, which has in most cases been justified by modern scientific studies on its biological effects. It has been confirmed that piperine has many bioactive effects, such as antimicrobial action, as well as many physiological effects that can contribute to general human health, including immunomodulatory, hepatoprotective, antioxidant, antimetastatic, antitumor, and many other activities. Clinical studies demonstrated remarkable antioxidant, antitumor, and drug availability-enhancing characteristics of this compound, together with immunomodulatory potential. All these facts point to the therapeutic potential of piperine and the need to incorporate this compound into general health-enhancing medical formulations, as well as into those that would be used as adjunctive therapy in order to enhance the bioavailability of various (chemo)therapeutic drugs.

Potential of Cannabinoid Receptor Ligands as Treatment for Substance Use Disorders

Substance use disorder (SUD) is a major public health crisis worldwide, and effective treatment options are limited. During the past 2 decades, researchers have investigated the impact of a variety of pharmacological approaches to treat SUD, one of which is the use of medical cannabis or cannabinoids. Significant progress was made with the discovery of rimonabant, a selective CB1 receptor (CB1R) antagonist (also an inverse agonist), as a promising therapeutic for SUDs and obesity. However, serious adverse effects such as depression and suicidality led to the withdrawal of rimonabant (and almost all other CB1R antagonists/inverse agonists) from clinical trials worldwide in 2008. Since then, much research interest has shifted to other cannabinoid-based strategies, such as peripheral CB1R antagonists/inverse agonists, neutral CB1R antagonists, allosteric CB1R modulators, CB2R agonists, fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) inhibitors, monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL) inhibitors, fatty acid binding protein (FABP) inhibitors, or nonaddictive phytocannabinoids with CB1R or CB2R-binding profiles, as new therapeutics for SUDs. In this article, we first review recent progress in research regarding the endocannabinoid systems, cannabis reward versus aversion, and the underlying receptor mechanisms. We then review recent progress in cannabinoid-based medication development for the treatment of SUDs. As evidence continues to accumulate, neutral CB1R antagonists (such as AM4113), CB2R agonists (JWH133, Xie2-64), and nonselective phytocannabinoids (cannabidiol, β-caryophyllene, ∆9-tetrahydrocannabivarin) have shown great therapeutic potential for SUDs, as shown in experimental animals. Several cannabinoid-based medications (e.g., dronabinol, nabilone, PF-04457845) that entered clinical trials have shown promising results in reducing withdrawal symptoms in cannabis and opioid users.

Evaluation of a Botanical Extract that Mimics the Respiratory Cues of Cigarette Smoke

Introduction: Cigarette addiction results from both pharmacological effects of nicotine and the rewarding effects of associated cues, including respiratory tract sensations.

Aims: This study sought to evaluate the initial acceptability of a non-nicotine botanical formulation that provided similar respiratory tract cues.

Methods: Two active test products and matching placebos were evaluated. One test product, an e-cigarette-like device, delivered a visible aerosol upon puffing; the other test product delivered an invisible vapour at ambient temperature. Test products delivered a botanical extract with flavourings and vehicle; the placebos delivered flavourings and vehicle only. Sixteen participants had 3-h ad libitum access to each test product and associated placebos, and were deprived of combustible cigarettes for 1 h before and throughout the 3-h evaluation period. Subjects rated the satisfaction (primary outcome) and other sensory qualities of the products. Safety evaluations included pulmonary function testing and monitoring vital signs.

Results: Satisfaction ratings (seven-point scale) were significantly greater for the active e-cigarette-like condition; M = 3.18, SD = 1.04 versus M = 2.69, SD = 1.22. Safety evaluations showed no clinically significant changes.

Conclusions: The results support the potential acceptability of a non-nicotine cigarette substitute in providing satisfaction to smokers. This approach merits further evaluation for safety and acceptability in tobacco harm reduction and cessation.

The Use of Aromatherapy for Postoperative Pain Management: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Aromatherapy (AT) is a complementary therapy recently used in the perianesthetic period. However, the scientific data on its effectiveness are limited. The aim of this systematic review is to present and analyze the results of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied the effectiveness of AT as a complementary treatment for postoperative pain.

DESIGN

PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1965 to December 2015. Nine randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were eventually included.

METHODS

The studies included a total of 644 patients, who underwent various types of surgeries. The modified Jadad scale with eight items was used for the methodological evaluation of the RCTs.

FINDINGS

Five RCTs support AT, which can alleviate postoperative pain, whereas four found no statistically significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although AT is presented as an inexpensive complementary treatment with a low rate of adverse effects that improves patient satisfaction, it cannot be determined that there is sufficient evidence to conclude its effectiveness as a nonpharmacologic approach to the reduction of postoperative pain intensity.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are electronic devices that heat a liquid into an aerosol for inhalation. The liquid usually comprises propylene glycol and glycerol, with or without nicotine and flavours, and stored in disposable or refillable cartridges or a reservoir. Since ECs appeared on the market in 2006 there has been a steady growth in sales. Smokers report using ECs to reduce risks of smoking, but some healthcare organizations, tobacco control advocacy groups and policy makers have been reluctant to encourage smokers to switch to ECs, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. Smokers, healthcare providers and regulators are interested to know if these devices can help smokers quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records from 2004 to January 2016, together with reference checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are electronic devices that heat a liquid - usually comprising propylene glycol and glycerol, with or without nicotine and flavours, stored in disposable or refillable cartridges or a reservoir - into an aerosol for inhalation. Since ECs appeared on the market in 2006 there has been a steady growth in sales. Smokers report using ECs to reduce risks of smoking, but some healthcare organisations have been reluctant to encourage smokers to switch to ECs, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. Smokers, healthcare providers and regulators are interested to know if these devices can reduce the harms associated with smoking. In particular, healthcare providers have an urgent need to know what advice they should give to smokers enquiring about ECs.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of ECs in helping people who smoke to achieve long-term abstinence; to examine the efficacy of ECs in helping people reduce cigarette consumption by at least 50% of baseline levels; and to assess the occurrence of adverse events associated with EC use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Groups Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases for relevant records from 2004 to July 2014, together with reference checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data from the included studies and another checked them. Our main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, and we used the most rigorous definition available (continuous, biochemically validated, longest follow-up). For reduction we used a dichotomous approach (no change/reduction < 50% versus reduction by 50% or more of baseline cigarette consumption). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study, and where appropriate we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified almost 600 records, from which we include 29 representing 13 completed studies (two RCTs, 11 cohort). We identified nine ongoing trials. Two RCTs compared EC with placebo (non-nicotine) EC, with a combined sample size of 662 participants. One trial included minimal telephone support and one recruited smokers not intending to quit, and both used early EC models with low nicotine content. We judged the RCTs to be at low risk of bias, but under the GRADE system the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated 'low' or 'very low' because of imprecision due to the small number of trials. A 'low' grade means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. A 'very low' grade means we are very uncertain about the estimate. Participants using an EC were more likely to have abstained from smoking for at least six months compared with participants using placebo EC (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.96; placebo 4% versus EC 9%; 2 studies; GRADE: low). The one study that compared EC to nicotine patch found no significant difference in six-month abstinence rates, but the confidence intervals do not rule out a clinically important difference (RR 1.26, 95% CI: 0.68 to 2.34; GRADE: very low). A higher number of people were able to reduce cigarette consumption by at least half with ECs compared with placebo ECs (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.68, 2 studies; placebo: 27% versus EC: 36%; GRADE: low) and compared with patch (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.67, 1 study; patch: 44% versus EC: 61%; GRADE: very low). Unlike smoking cessation outcomes, reduction results were not biochemically verified.None of the RCTs or cohort studies reported any serious adverse events (SAEs) that were considered to be plausibly related to EC use. One RCT provided data on the proportion of participants experiencing any adverse events. Although the proportion of participants in the study arms experiencing adverse events was similar, the confidence intervals are wide (ECs vs placebo EC RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; ECs vs patch RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22). The other RCT reported no statistically significant difference in the frequency of AEs at three- or 12-month follow-up between the EC and placebo EC groups, and showed that in all groups the frequency of AEs (with the exception of throat irritation) decreased significantly over time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking long-term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. ECs appear to help smokers unable to stop smoking altogether to reduce their cigarette consumption when compared with placebo ECs and nicotine patches, but the above limitations also affect certainty in this finding. In addition, lack of biochemical assessment of the actual reduction in smoke intake further limits this evidence. No evidence emerged that short-term EC use is associated with health risk.

The effects of aromatherapy on nicotine craving on a U.S. campus: a small comparison study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of two inhaled essential oils (black pepper or angelica) on the nicotine habits of students, staff, and faculty on a U.S. college campus.

DESIGN

Comparative study with pre-/post-test measures.

SETTING

Community college in rural East Texas.

PARTICIPANTS

Convenience sample of 20 volunteers from the college community (students, faculty, and staff) who were regular (daily) users of nicotine (cigarettes, snuff, or chewing tobacco).

INTERVENTIONS

Inhalation of one drop of essential oil on a tissue for 2 minutes when participant was craving nicotine.

OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Pre-inhalation journal recording of self-assessed level of craving for nicotine on a 0-10 scale, (2) post-inhalation journal recording of self-assessed level of craving for nicotine on a 0-10 scale, and (3) minutes that participant waited from start of inhalation until next use of tobacco.

RESULTS

Both black pepper and angelica reduced the level of nicotine craving and allowed a longer delay before next use of tobacco. However, black pepper reduced the level of craving more than did angelica, and angelica allowed for a longer delay than did black pepper.

CONCLUSIONS

Aromatherapy may be useful in nicotine withdrawal. Further studies are warranted.

Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has been the primary focus of cannabis research since 1964, when Raphael Mechoulam isolated and synthesized it. More recently, the synergistic contributions of cannabidiol to cannabis pharmacology and analgesia have been scientifically demonstrated. Other phytocannabinoids, including tetrahydrocannabivarin, cannabigerol and cannabichromene, exert additional effects of therapeutic interest. Innovative conventional plant breeding has yielded cannabis chemotypes expressing high titres of each component for future study. This review will explore another echelon of phytotherapeutic agents, the cannabis terpenoids: limonene, myrcene, α-pinene, linalool, β-caryophyllene, caryophyllene oxide, nerolidol and phytol. Terpenoids share a precursor with phytocannabinoids, and are all flavour and fragrance components common to human diets that have been designated Generally Recognized as Safe by the US Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies. Terpenoids are quite potent, and affect animal and even human behaviour when inhaled from ambient air at serum levels in the single digits ng·mL(-1) . They display unique therapeutic effects that may contribute meaningfully to the entourage effects of cannabis-based medicinal extracts. Particular focus will be placed on phytocannabinoid-terpenoid interactions that could produce synergy with respect to treatment of pain, inflammation, depression, anxiety, addiction, epilepsy, cancer, fungal and bacterial infections (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). Scientific evidence is presented for non-cannabinoid plant components as putative antidotes to intoxicating effects of THC that could increase its therapeutic index. Methods for investigating entourage effects in future experiments will be proposed. Phytocannabinoid-terpenoid synergy, if proven, increases the likelihood that an extensive pipeline of new therapeutic products is possible from this venerable plant. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2011.163.issue-7.

Prolonged exposure to denicotinized cigarettes with or without transdermal nicotine

Sensorimotor smoking stimuli are important determinants of cigarette use. The present study aimed to determine whether denicotinized cigarettes lose their reinforcing and/or subjective effects over a 9-day outpatient period when they are smoked with or without concurrent transdermal nicotine. After a preferred brand baseline, 68 participants were randomized into one of four conditions based on the dose (mg) of transdermal nicotine and the type of cigarettes (dose/cigarette): 0/nicotine, 0/denicotinized, 7/denicotinized, and 21/denicotinized. Under placebo patch conditions, participants smoked a similar number of nicotine and denicotinized cigarettes and no group differences emerged over repeated testing. The total volume of smoke inhaled was lower in the denicotinized group, although this decrease dissipated over time. Denicotinized cigarettes were rated as having low positive and high negative subjective effects. Compared to placebo, transdermal nicotine decreased the number of denicotinized cigarette smoked, produced a lasting decrease in the total volume of denicotinized cigarette smoke inhaled, but had little effect on the subjective effects of denicotinized cigarettes. Transdermal nicotine attenuated withdrawal during initial smoking abstinence; however, once participants were allowed to smoke withdrawal symptoms were relatively low regardless of patch condition. The persistent use of denicotinized cigarettes may result from the presence of nicotine withdrawal and/or the degree to which smoking becomes somewhat independent of the outcome of the behavior (i.e., habit learning). Additional studies would be useful to determine what factors drive continued use of denicotinized cigarettes, whether their use subsides as withdrawal dissipates, and whether they address motives for smoking distinct from current pharmacotherapy.

The role of sensory perception in the development and targeting of tobacco products

AIMS

To examine tobacco industry research on smoking-related sensory effects, including differences in sensory perception across smoker groups, and to determine whether this research informed targeted product development and impacted the development of commercial tobacco products.

DESIGN

We searched previously secret internal tobacco industry documents available online through document databases housed at Tobacco Documents Online, the British American Tobacco Document Archive and the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. We identified relevant documents using a snowball sampling method to first search the databases using an initial set of key words and to then establish further search terms.

FINDINGS

Sensory research is a priority within the tobacco industry directly impacting commercial markets both in the United States and internationally. Sensory factors contribute to smoker satisfaction and product acceptance, and play an important role in controlling puffing behavior. Cigarette manufacturers have capitalized on distinct sensory preferences across gender, age and ethnic groups by tailoring products for specific populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Regulation of tobacco products is needed to address product changes that are used to reinforce or contribute to tobacco dependence; for instance, the incorporation of additives that target attributes such as smoothness, harshness and aftertaste. Greater understanding of the role of sensory effects on smoking behavior may also help to inform the development of tobacco treatment options that support long-term tobacco abstinence.

Complementary treatments for tobacco cessation: A survey

Little information is available regarding the prevalence of use and interest in future use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for tobacco cessation among tobacco users. We conducted a self-administered anonymous survey among 1,175 patients seen at a midwestern outpatient tobacco treatment specialty clinic between November 2003 and July 2005. Patient use of CAM for tobacco cessation, perceived efficacy of these treatments, and interest in future use of CAM were ascertained. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics, and logistic regression models were used to determine the characteristics associated with past CAM use or interest in future use of CAM for tobacco cessation. All of the patients who received the survey completed it. A total of 27% of patients reported previous use of CAM for tobacco cessation. The interventions most commonly used were hypnosis, relaxation, acupuncture, and meditation. CAM treatments most commonly perceived to be efficacious were yoga, relaxation, meditation, and massage therapy. A total of 67% of the patients reported interest in future use of CAM for tobacco cessation. The treatments of greatest interest for use in the future were hypnosis, herbal products, acupuncture, relaxation, and massage therapy. Female gender, previous use of conventional tobacco cessation products, previous use of CAM treatments, and a higher level of education were significantly associated with interest in future CAM use. The high level of interest in CAM among tobacco users underscores the need to conduct further research in this field.

Human tobacco smokers in early abstinence have higher levels of beta2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors than nonsmokers

Nicotine, the addictive chemical in tobacco smoke, initiates its actions in brain through nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). In particular, nAChRs containing beta2-subunits (beta2*-nAChRs) the most prevalent subtype, mediate the reinforcing properties of nicotine. We hypothesized that abnormal numbers of beta2*-nAChRs during early abstinence contribute to the perpetuation of addiction to tobacco smoking. Using molecular imaging, specifically single-photon emission computed tomography with the nAChR agonist radiotracer [123I]5-IA-85380 ([123I]5-IA), we imaged beta2*-nAChR availability in human smokers. First, using nonhuman primates treated chronically with nicotine, we estimated the time interval necessary for smokers to abstain from smoking so that residual nicotine would not interfere with [123I]5-IA binding to the beta2*-nAChR as approximately 7 d. Thus, we imaged human smokers at 6.8 +/- 1.9 d (mean +/- SD) of abstinence. Abstinence was confirmed by daily assessments of urinary cotinine and expired carbon monoxide levels. In smokers, [123I]5-IA uptake was significantly higher throughout the cerebral cortex (26-36%) and in the striatum (27%) than in nonsmokers, suggesting higher beta2*-nAChR in recently abstinent smokers. Beta2*-nAChR availability in recently abstinent smokers correlated with the days since last cigarette and the urge to smoke to relieve withdrawal symptoms but not the severity of nicotine dependence, severity of nicotine withdrawal, or the desire to smoke. Higher brain beta2*-nAChR during early abstinence indicates that, when smokers quit smoking, they do so in the face of a significant increase in the receptors normally activated by nicotine. Greater beta2*-nAChR availability during early abstinence may impact the ability of smokers to maintain abstinence.

Skin conductance responses are elicited by the airway sensory effects of puffs from cigarettes

The airway sensations stimulated by smoking are an important source of hedonic impact (pleasure) for dependent smokers. The learning process by which these sensations become pleasurable is not well understood. The classical conditioning model predicts that airway sensory stimulation will elicit sympathetic arousal that is positively correlated with the hedonic impact that is elicited by airway sensory stimulation. To test this prediction, we measured skin conductance responses (SCRs) and subjective hedonic impact elicited by a series of individual puffs from nicotinized, denicotinized and unlit cigarettes. Nicotinized puffs elicited more subjective hedonic impact than denicotinized and unlit puffs partly as a result of the fact that they provided a greater level of airway sensory stimulation. We found that SCRs were not larger for nicotinized puffs than for denicotinized puffs, but that they were larger for both nicotinized and denicotinized puffs than for unlit puffs. We also found that the average SCR of a subject to denicotinized puffs was positively correlated with the average hedonic impact that a subject obtained from denicotinized puffs. Together, this suggests that SCR magnitude does not reflect within-subject variations in hedonic impact that are due to variations in the level of airway sensory stimulation, but that it does reflect individual differences in the amount of hedonic impact that is derived from a given level of airway sensory stimulation. The results of a post hoc correlation analysis suggest that these individual differences may have been due to variations in the prevailing urge to smoke. The implications of these findings for the classical conditioning model, as well as for other learning models, are discussed.

Nicotine and nonnicotine factors in cigarette addiction

RATIONALE

A great deal of research supports the role of nicotine in cigarette addiction. However, the effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as a smoking cessation treatment has fallen short of initial hopes. A key reason may be that NRT does not address nonnicotine components of smoking reinforcement. These include constituents that provide reinforcing sensory stimulation, components that minimize excessive irritation from inhaled nicotine and other pharmacologically active compounds in cigarette smoke.

OBJECTIVE

Studies using various paradigms to dissociate nicotine from other components of smoking are summarized.

RESULTS

Nonnicotine components provide many rewarding effects, often surpassing the direct effects of nicotine. Substitutes for the sensory effects of smoking may be effective in relieving craving for cigarettes and in facilitating smoking cessation. Moreover, techniques for devaluing smoking-related cues may decrease craving and enhance subsequent abstinence. Promising approaches for devaluing smoke cues include extinction-based treatments employing denicotinized cigarettes and the use of nicotinic agonist and/or antagonist treatment during the weeks leading up to a quit attempt. Recent studies suggest that incorporating these approaches into a treatment program may significantly increase smoking abstinence rates. Preliminary findings also suggest that replacement of the effects of monoamine oxidase inhibitors contained in cigarette smoke may enhance quit rates.

CONCLUSIONS

While current NRT methods have been the mainstay of smoking cessation treatment and will likely continue to serve a useful role, the next stage of progress will likely entail the development of tools designed with recognition of the importance of nonnicotine components of cigarette smoking.

Complementary and Alternative Therapies: A New Frontier for Nursing Education?

The field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is relatively new to Western health care and scientific research. The American public is embracing the use of CAM, and consequently, health care professionals will have to integrate these therapies into their professional practice. With the addition of basic CAM components to the newest NCLEX-RN blueprint, nursing education programs at all levels must incorporate CAM into their curricula. There are challenges to be faced with the implementation of added content, but nurse educators have successfully faced these challenges in the past. Specific strategies for integrating CAM topics into nursing curricula are discussed.

Targeting treatments to special populations

The average rate of long-term tobacco abstinence in a general population of treatment-seeking tobacco users is about 25%. Most of these treatments tend to use generic approaches, although the population of tobacco users is quite heterogeneous. It is entirely possible that special populations of smokers have specific treatment needs. If these needs are addressed, then treatment success may be augmented. This paper will review different issues that may surface when treating special populations. The special populations to be examined will be broken down by gender, age and route of tobacco administration. In addition, gaps in the scientific literature and directions for future research will be discussed. Once population-specific treatment needs are identified, then the effects of tailored treatments in augmenting treatment success can be determined.

Complementary therapies and health promotion

Nurses have an important role to play in health promotions and it is important that they have a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the theories of health promotion and conventional interventions. However, they are increasingly likely to be asked about the efficacy of non-conventional interventions and the likelihood of these interventions being of value to the client. This paper offers a review of the evidence to support the role of complementary therapies as adjunctive treatments to enable nurses to discuss their use with their clients as part of their health choice options.

Effects of nicotine dose, instructional set, and outcome expectancies on the subjective effects of smoking in the presence of a stressor

The balanced placebo design (BPD) was used to evaluate the independent effects of nicotine dose and smoking-related expectancies on self-reported anxiety, urge to smoke, and withdrawal symptoms. After anxious mood was induced, participants smoked either a de-nicotinized cigarette or one with standard nicotine content. Nicotine dose was crossed with instructions that the cigarette was either de-nicotinized or standard. Nicotine cigarettes produced greater anxiety reduction than de-nicotinized cigarettes. Nicotine instructions attenuated anxiety only among those who held relevant expectancies. Nicotine dose and instructional set interacted such that either nicotine cigarettes or instructions that the cigarettes contained nicotine were sufficient to reduce urge to smoke. Implications of these findings and methodological issues regarding use of the BPD with cigarettes are discussed.

Cue dependency of nicotine self-administration and smoking

A paradox exists regarding the reinforcing properties of nicotine. The abuse liability associated with smoking equals or exceeds that of other addictive drugs, yet the euphoric, reinforcing and other psychological effects of nicotine, compared to these other drugs, are more subtle, are manifest under more restricted conditions, and do not readily predict the difficulty most smokers experience in achieving abstinence. One possible resolution to this apparent inconsistency is that environmental cues associated with drug delivery become conditioned reinforcers and take on powerful incentive properties that are critically important for sustaining smoking in humans and nicotine self-administration in animals. We tested this hypothesis by using a widely employed self-administration paradigm in which rats press a lever at high rates for 1 h/day to obtain intravenous infusions of nicotine that are paired with two types of visual stimuli: a chamber light that when turned on signals drug availability and a 1-s cue light that signals drug delivery. We show that these visual cues are at least as important as nicotine in sustaining a high rate of responding once self-administration has been established, in the degree to which withdrawing nicotine extinguishes the behavior, and in the reinstatement of lever pressing after extinction. Additional studies demonstrated that the importance of these cues was manifest under both fixed ratio and progressive ratio (PR) schedules of reinforcement. The possibility that nicotine-paired cues are as important as nicotine in smoking behavior should refocus our attention on the psychology and neurobiology of conditioned reinforcers in order to stimulate the development of more effective treatment programs for smoking cessation.

Nicotine as an Addictive Substance: A Critical Examination of the Basic Concepts and Empirical Evidence

The present review is a critical analysis of the concepts behind and the empirical data supporting the view that tobacco use represents an addiction to nicotine. It deals with general aspects of the notion of addiction, while concentrating on specific problems associated with incorporating nicotine into current frameworks. The notion of addiction suffers from unprecedented definitional difficulties. The definitions offered by various authorities are very different, even contradictory. Definitions that reasonably include nicotine are so broad and vague that they allow many trivial things, such as salt, sugar, and watching television, to be considered addictive. Definitions that exclude the trivia also exclude nicotine. The addiction hypothesis, in general, is strongly shaped by views that certain drugs bring about a molecular level subversion of rationality. The main human evidence for this is verbal reports of smokers who say that they can't quit. On the other hand, the existence of many millions of successful quitters suggests that most people can quit. Some smokers don't quit, but whether they can't is another matter. The addiction hypothesis would be greatly strengthened by the demonstration that any drug of abuse produces special changes in the brain. It has yet to be shown that any drug produces changes in the brain different from those produced by many innocuous substances and events. The effects of nicotine on the brain are similar to those of sugar, salt, exercise, and other harmless substances and events. Apart from numerous conceptual and definitional inadequacies with the addiction concept in general, the notion that nicotine is addictive lacks reasonable empirical support. Nicotine does not have the properties of reference drugs of abuse. There are so many findings that conflict so starkly with the view that nicotine is addictive that it increasingly appears that adhering to the nicotine addiction thesis is only defensible on extra-scientific grounds.