Appeal of electronic cigarettes in smokers with serious mental illness

Who would be affected by a ban on disposable vapes? A population study in Great Britain

OBJECTIVES

The UK government is consulting on banning disposable e-cigarettes. This study aimed to describe trends in disposable e-cigarette use among adults in Great Britain since 2021 and establish who would currently be affected by a ban on disposables.

STUDY DESIGN

Nationally-representative monthly cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

We analysed data from 69,973 adults surveyed between January 2021 and August 2023. We estimated monthly time trends in the weighted prevalence of current disposable e-cigarette use among adults and by sociodemographic characteristics and smoking status.

RESULTS

From January 2021 to August 2023, the prevalence of disposable e-cigarette use grew from 0.1 % to 4.9 %. This rise was observed across all population subgroups but was most pronounced among younger adults (e.g. reaching 15.9 % of 18-year-olds compared with 1.3 % of 65-year-olds), those who currently smoke (16.3 %), and those who stopped smoking in the past year (18.2 %). Use among never smokers remained relatively rare (1.5 %), except among 18- to 24-year-olds (7.1 %). Use was significantly higher in England than Wales or Scotland (5.3 % vs. 2.0 % and 2.8 %) and among less (vs. more) advantaged social grades (6.1 % vs. 4.0 %), those with (vs. without) children (6.4 % vs. 4.4 %), and those with (vs. without) a history of mental health conditions (9.3 % vs. 3.1 %).

CONCLUSIONS

A ban on disposable e-cigarettes would currently affect one in 20 adults in Great Britain (approximately 2.6 million people). The proportion who would be affected would be greatest among young people, including the 316,000 18-24 year-olds who currently use disposables but who have never regularly smoked tobacco, which may discourage uptake of vaping in this group. However, a ban would also affect 1.2 million people who currently smoke and a further 744,000 who previously smoked. It would also have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups that have higher rates of smoking and typically find it harder to quit.

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.

E-cigarette use and respiratory symptoms in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is gaining popularity among adults. Monitoring e-cigarette-induced respiratory symptoms is crucial for both clinical and regulatory purposes. We systematically reviewed the current literature to understand the prevalence of respiratory symptoms among exclusive e-cigarette users, dual users, and former smokers.

METHODS

Databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus. We included all English-language, empirical quantitative articles that explored the prevalence of e-cigarette-related respiratory symptoms. Random-effects models were utilized in conducting the meta-analyses. The quality of identified studies was evaluated using the NIH Study Quality Assessment Tools. This study is registered with PROSPERO(#CRD42020165973).

RESULTS

The literature search identified 1240 references. After removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 168 studies were included in the final review. The majority of included studies reported a wide range of adverse respiratory symptoms. The respiratory symptoms were prevalent among the exclusive e-cigarette users, dual users, and those who switched from combustible cigarettes to e-cigarettes. Further, out of the RCT studies, 5 were rated as good quality, while 3 were rated as fair. Among the observational studies, 24 were rated as good quality, and 9 were rated as fair. The two experimental studies were both rated as fair quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Continued monitoring of respiratory symptoms among e-cigarette users is warranted. Due to the heterogeneity and inconsistencies among studies, which limit result interpretation and highlight the need for studies assessing causal inference, further research using robust study designs is essential. This will provide clinicians with comprehensive knowledge about the potential respiratory risks of e-cigarette use.

Smoke and mirrors: Support from psychiatrists for nicotine e-cigarette availability in Australia

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists' (RANZCP) 2018 position statement supports increased, regulated availability of e-cigarettes (ECs) as a harm-reduction measure and recommends further research into their use. Aligned with this recommendation, we aimed to critically evaluate the RANZCP's stance on this issue through a literature review focused on the areas identified in the position statement as requiring further investigation: (1) the adverse health effects attributable to ECs; (2) use of ECs for smoking cessation (particularly for people living with severe mental illness); and (3) EC-associated risks for nicotine naïve young people. We identified and summarised evidence of harm attributable to ECs that is particularly relevant to young people through direct adverse health sequelae, onset of nicotine dependence and increased risk of combustible cigarette (CC) use. A small number of studies suggest ECs can be used for harm-reduction purposes in people diagnosed with nicotine dependence and severe mental illness. However, these results must be considered alongside robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of existing pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in people with severe mental illness. The position statement is in urgent need of review in line with the available evidence.

Unintended Side Effects of Electronic Cigarettes in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Electronic cigarettes (E-cigs) are nicotine delivery systems with increasing popularity. The US Food and Drug Administration defines side effects as unwanted or unexpected events or reactions. Our objective was to examine the unintended otolaryngology-related side effects associated with E-cigs.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Study selection was independently performed by 2 authors in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews); discrepancies were resolved by the senior author. English studies from database inception to May 1, 2020, with a sample size >5 were included. In vitro, animal, and lower respiratory tract studies were excluded. The main outcome was defined as otolaryngology-related side effects following E-cig use. Levels of evidence per the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine were used to determine study quality.

RESULTS

From 1788 articles, 32 studies were included. The most common unintended side effects were throat irritation (n = 16), cough (n = 16), mouth irritation (n = 11), and oral mucosal lesions (n = 8). A large proportion of participants also reported conventional tobacco use in addition to E-cigs. Eight studies investigated the effectiveness of vaping on smoking cessation. The quality of the literature was level 2 to 4. Given the significant heterogeneity in the studies, meta-analysis was not performed.

CONCLUSION

The most reported side effects were throat and mouth irritation, followed by cough. The long-term impact of E-cigs is not known given the recent emergence of this technology. Future studies are 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.

E-Cigarette Provision to Promote Switching in Cigarette Smokers With Serious Mental Illness-A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

High cigarette smoking prevalence and low quit rates in people with serious mental illness (SMI) contribute to disparate rates of chronic disease and premature death. This prospective trial tested the impact of switching to a potentially lower-harm nicotine-containing product on smoking in this population.

AIMS AND METHODS

A total of 240 cigarette smokers with SMI who tried but were currently unwilling to quit were randomly assigned to receive disposable e-cigarettes for 8 weeks or not, with assessments at baseline, 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, and 26 weeks. Generalized linear mixed models examined the effects of e-cigarette provision on e-cigarette appeal, cigarettes per day (CPD), breath carbon monoxide (CO), nicotine dependence, and side effects. Clinical Trial registration: NCT03050853.

RESULTS

Self-reported smoking was similar between groups at baseline (mean = 18.7 CPD). By week 2, 79% of the e-cigarette group were using e-cigarettes daily. During weeks 2-8, CPD and CO decreased in the e-cigarette versus assessment-only group (eg, 7.5 CPD [95% CI = 5.9, 9.2] vs. 18.1 CPD [CI = 16.4, 19.8] and 16.4 ppm [CI = 13.4, 19.5] vs. 25.4 ppm [CI = 22.4, 28.9], respectively, at week 2). Additionally, 19%-22% in the e-cigarette group reported smoking no cigarettes in weeks 2-8 compared to 0% in the assessment-only group. By 13 and 26 weeks, group differences in CPD, but not CO, remained significant. Nicotine dependence did not increase and side effects were minor.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing e-cigarettes for 8 weeks to smokers with SMI resulted in substantial reductions in CPD and CO. Enhancing and maintaining switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes warrant further study.

IMPLICATIONS

This was the first prospective study to compare e-cigarette provision with assessments only to evaluate the appeal and impact of e-cigarettes on smoking behavior, carbon monoxide exposure, and nicotine dependence among smokers with SMI who had tried but were unable to quit and were not currently interested in cessation treatment. The finding that e-cigarette provision led to significant reductions in smoking and carbon monoxide without increasing nicotine dependence has implications for reducing harm not only among the millions of smokers with SMI who struggle to quit, but also for other vulnerable smokers who cannot achieve cessation.

Serious Psychological Distress Is Associated with Higher Intentions to Quit among Smokers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 has increased the rates of serious psychological distress (SPD) among the general population. However, the SPD among smokers during the pandemic remains understudied. In a parent study, 1,004 U.S. adult smokers with and without SPD were randomized to view messages about COVID-19 risk, smoking risk, combined COVID-19 and smoking risk, or control. Outcomes were smoking quit intentions and COVID-19 protective behavior intentions. We analyzed the prevalence of SPD among current smokers; the associations between SPD, personal characteristics, and smoking and COVID-19 protective behavioral intentions; and whether SPD moderated the effect of messages about risks of smoking and COVID-19.Thirty-six percent of smokers met the criteria for SPD. Odds of having SPD were higher for older, everyday smokers, who had COVID-19, had poor health and conservative ideology. Smokers with SPD were significantly more likely to report intentions to quit smoking and seek counseling than smokers without SPD, controlling for demographics, readiness to quit, and message condition. SPD was not significantly related to COVID-19 protective intentions. The interactions between SPD and messages were nonsignificant. During the pandemic, smokers with SPD may be motivated to quit smoking, which provides an opportunity for targeted interventions to increase quit attempts.

There's no smoke without fire: Smoking in smoke-free acute mental health wards

BACKGROUND

People who smoke with serious mental illness carry disproportionate costs from smoking, including poor health and premature death from tobacco-related illnesses. Hospitals in New Zealand are ostensibly smoke-free; however, some mental health wards have resisted implementing this policy.

AIM

This study explored smoking in acute metal health wards using data emerging from a large sociological study on modern acute psychiatric units.

METHODS

Eighty-five in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff and service users from four units. Data were analysed using a social constructionist problem representation approach.

RESULTS

Although high-level smoke-free policies were mandatory, most participants disregarded these policies and smoking occurred in internal courtyards. Staff reasoned that acute admissions were not the time to quit smoking, citing the sceptres of distress and possibly violence; further, they found smoking challenging to combat. Inconsistent enforcement of smoke-free policies was common and problematic. Many service users also rejected smoke-free policies; they considered smoking facilitated social connections, alleviated boredom, and helped them feel calm in a distressing environment - some started or increased smoking following admission. A minority viewed smoking as a problem; a fire hazard, or pollutant. No one mentioned its health risks.

CONCLUSION

Psychiatric wards remain overlooked corners where hospital smoke-free policies are inconsistently applied or ignored. Well-meaning staff hold strong but anachronistic views about smoking. To neglect smoking cessation support for people with serious mental illness is discriminatory and perpetuates health and socioeconomic inequities. However, blanket applications of generic policy are unlikely to succeed. Solutions may include myth-busting education for service users and staff, local champions, and strong managerial support and leadership, with additional resourcing during transition phases. Smoke-free policies need consistent application with non-judgemental NRT and, potentially, other treatments. Smoking cessation would be supported by better designed facilities with more options for alleviating boredom, expressing autonomy, facilitating social connections, and reducing distress.

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.

Correlates of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation among clients in residential substance use disorder treatment

Little is known about e-cigarette use among persons in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, or their use of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. Prevalence of e-cigarette use and correlates of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation were examined among clients in SUD treatment. Participants (n = 332) were current cigarette smokers recruited from 20 residential SUD programs in California. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify correlates of using e-cigarettes for quitting smoking. Almost half (45.2%) of the sample had ever used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, and 34% had used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days. Smokers who had used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, compared to those who had not, were younger (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91, 0.96), had more than a high school education (AOR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.07, 2.68), sought treatment for both SUD and mental health disorder (AOR = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.38, 5.00), wanted help quitting smoking (AOR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.03, 3.50) and perceived e-cigarettes as equally harmful (AOR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.10, 8.33) or less harmful than tobacco cigarettes (AOR = 2.82, 95% CI = 1.02, 7.77). Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino participants were less likely to use e-cigarettes for smoking cessation than participants who identify as White. E-cigarettes were favorably perceived by clients in residential SUD treatment as a quit smoking aid. Treatment programs should consider how to advise clients with respect to the use of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Evaluating the psychometric properties of the e-cigarette barriers to cessation scale

Evidence suggests that electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) users have difficulty quitting e-cigarettes. The Electronic Cigarette Barriers to Cessation Scale (E-BCS) was developed to assess barriers to cessation among e-cigarette users. Yet, no work has evaluated the psychometric properties of the E-BCS. The current study utilized data from two independent samples of adult e-cigarette users to evaluate the psychometric properties and structure of the E-BCS. In Study 1, competing models of the E-BCS were evaluated, and initial construct validity and reliability were explored using data from 599 adult e-cigarettes users (52.3% female, M_age = 35.16 years, SD = 10.30). Results supported a unidimensional structure for the E-BCS comprised of 18 items. In Study 2, the unidimensional structure of the 18-item E-BCS and construct validity were evaluated among a sample of 516 current e-cigarette using adults (52.3% female; M_age = 34.74, SD = 11.37). Results confirmed the unidimensional structure, measurement invariance across sex, and construct validity across related e-cigarette behavior constructs and psychopathology for the E-BCS. These findings suggest that the E-BCS is a potentially useful clinical instrument for measuring barriers that may interfere with e-cigarette cessation.

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.

[Contribution of electronic cigarettes in smoking patients with psychotic disorders. A literature review]

OBJECTIVES

This systematic literature review focused on patients suffering from schizophrenia (SZ), psychotic disorders or mental illness (MI) including SZ. It was interested in data on prevalence of electronic cigarette (EC) use, patient perceptions and expectations, as well as caregivers' attitudes towards the EC and its benefit in helping to stop or reduce smoking.

METHOD

The research was carried out on Medline for the period 2000-2020. Cross-sectional, case-control, prospective, randomized controlled studies and preliminary studies were included in this review.

RESULTS

EC is widely used by MI patients with current and lifetime use from 7.4% to 28.6%. More specifically, patients with SZ and schizoaffective disorders observe current and lifetime use from 7% to 36%, respectively. Many reasons are given by patients for its use including the possibility of using it in places where smoking is prohibited, its lower toxicity compared to cigarettes for oneself and those around, its lower cost, and the help provided to reduce consumption.

CONCLUSION

EC is used by smokers with MI; several studies confirm the possibility for these smokers to reduce tobacco consumption through EC and without disturbing their mental state. However, its value in helping to quit smoking remains uncertain.

E-Cigarette Use among Current Smokers Experiencing Homelessness

Two-thirds of cigarette smokers experiencing homelessness report using alternative tobacco products, including blunts, cigarillos (little cigars) or roll-your-own tobacco or electronic nicotine delivery systems such as e-cigarettes. We examined attitudes toward e-cigarette use and explored whether e-cigarette use patterns were associated with past-year cigarette quit attempts among current smokers experiencing homelessness. Among the 470 current cigarette smokers recruited from homeless service sites in San Francisco, 22.1% (n = 65) reported the use of e-cigarettes in the past 30 days ('dual users'). Compared to cigarette-only smokers, dual users considered e-cigarettes to be safer than cigarettes. Patterns of e-cigarette use, including the number of times used per day, duration of use during the day, manner of use and nicotine concentration were not associated with past-year cigarette quit attempts. Studies that examine the motivations for use of e-cigarettes, particularly for their use as smoking cessation aids, could inform interventions for tobacco use among people experiencing homelessness.

A Single-Arm, Open-Label, Pilot, and Feasibility Study of a High Nicotine Strength E-Cigarette Intervention for Smoking Cessation or Reduction for People With Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders Who Smoke Cigarettes

Introduction

An estimated 60%–90% of people with schizophrenia smoke, compared with 15%–24% of the general population, exacerbating the already high morbidity and mortality rates observed in this population.

Aims and Methods

This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using a new-generation high strength nicotine e-cigarette to modify smoking behavior in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who smoke cigarettes. A single-arm pilot study was conducted with 40 adults with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who smoked and did not intend to reduce or quit smoking. Participants were given a 12-week supply of a JUUL e-cigarette loaded with a 5% nicotine pod. The primary outcome was smoking cessation at week 12. Additional outcomes included: smoking reduction, continuous abstinence at week 24, adoption rate, adherence to the e-cigarette, feasibility, acceptability, and subjective effects.

Results

Sixteen (40%) participants quit by the end of 12 weeks. For the whole sample, we observed an overall, sustained 50% reduction in smoking or smoking abstinence in 37/40 (92.5%) of participants and an overall 75% reduction in median cigarettes per day from 25 to six was observed by the end of the 12 weeks (p < .001).

Conclusions

A high strength nicotine e-cigarette has the potential to help people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders to quit or reduce smoking. Further research with a larger sample and a comparator group is needed. The results provide useful information and direction to augment the existing body of knowledge on smoking cessation for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

Implications

Considering that most people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders continue smoking, alternative and efficient interventions to reduce or prevent morbidity and mortality are urgently needed. This study showed that adults who smoke and were not motivated to quit, when provided a new-generation e-cigarette with high nicotine content, demonstrated substantially decreased cigarette consumption without causing significant side effects. Although not specifically measured in this study, nicotine absorption in new-generation devices has been shown to be consistently superior compared with the first generation of e-cigarette devices, and this may help explain the lower quit rates in studies using earlier generation devices.

Cigarette Use, E-Cigarette Use, and Dual Product Use Are Higher Among Adults With Serious Psychological Distress in the United States: 2014-2017

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette use is declining yet remains common among adults with mental health conditions. In contrast, e-cigarette use may be on the rise. This study investigated the relationship between serious psychological distress (SPD) and the exclusive and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes among US adults from 2014 to 2017.

AIMS AND METHODS

Data came from 2014 to 2017 National Health Interview Survey, an annual, cross-sectional survey of nationally representative samples of US adults (total combined analytic sample n = 125 302). Past-month SPD was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and cigarette and e-cigarette use were assessed at each wave. Logistic regressions examined product use by SPD status in 2017 and trends in product use by SPD status from 2014 to 2017. Analyses adjusted for demographic covariates.

RESULTS

The prevalence of cigarette use, e-cigarette use, and dual use was higher among adults with SPD than without SPD in each year including the most recent data year 2017 (cigarette use, 39.50% vs. 13.40%, p < .001; e-cigarette use, 7.41% vs. 2.65%, p < .001; dual use, 5.30% vs. 1.26%, p < .001). Among adults with SPD, the prevalence of cigarette, e-cigarette, and dual product use did not change from 2014 to 2017 in contrast to a decreasing prevalence in cigarette, e-cigarette, and dual product use among individuals without SPD.

CONCLUSIONS

US adults with SPD report higher levels of cigarette, e-cigarette, and dual product use than adults without SPD. Use of these products has not declined over the past several years in contrast to decreasing trends among adults without SPD.

IMPLICATIONS

These data extend our knowledge of tobacco product use and mental health disparities by showing that in addition to higher levels of cigarette use, US adults with SPD also use e-cigarettes and dual products (cigarette and e-cigarette) more commonly than those without SPD. Furthermore, the use of these products has not declined over the past several years in contrast to continuing declines among adults without SPD. More research is needed to understand the potential positive and negative consequences of e-cigarette use among adults with SPD.

Affective Vulnerability Across Non-Daily and Daily Electronic Cigarette Users

Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has risen exponentially since its initial introduction. The widespread and growing use of these novel products has prompted increased research to evaluate use from a nuanced perspective that considers patterns and antecedents of use. Specifically, research has identified sociodemographic characteristics related to varying levels of e-cigarette use frequency. Yet, limited research has investigated broad-based psychological factors related to frequent and infrequent e-cigarette use. The current study sought to address this clinically relevant research gap within a cross sectional design. Several affective vulnerability states were evaluated, including anxiety sensitivity, anxious arousal, general distress, and anhedonia across 566 (51.1% female, Mage = 35.3 years, SD = 10.1) non-daily and daily past month, adult e-cigarette users. Results demonstrated that in comparison to non-daily e-cigarette users, daily users evinced significantly higher levels of anxiety sensitivity, anxiety sensitivity cognitive concerns, anxiety sensitivity social concerns, anxiety sensitivity physical concerns, anxious arousal, and general distress. No significant differences were found for anhedonic depression. Overall, the current study provides initial and novel empirical evidence that certain affective vulnerability constructs related to anxiety may be more strongly endorsed by daily e-cigarette users. Importantly, this work adds to evolving, but underdeveloped, e-cigarette models by highlighting the need to consider anxiety-related constructs when evaluating e-cigarette use patterns and behavior.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A qualitative study of the views about smoking, licensed cessation aids and e-cigarettes in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

Smoking prevalence remains high among people with a mental health condition compared to those without. Understanding people's motivation to quit and their views of smoking cessation support may help to develop future interventions. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the perceptions of 30 people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who were current smokers, about smoking traditional cigarettes, the appeal of licensed medicines and e-cigarettes for smoking cessation or smoking reduction. The experiences of participants who were motivated to quit were compared with those who were not motivated to quit. Findings suggest traditional cigarettes were pleasurable and licensed cessation aids and e-cigarettes unappealing to participants who were unmotivated to quit. Whereas nicotine replacement products and e-cigarettes may be an appealing smoking cessation or reduction strategy for those motivated to quit. There is a need to find ways of making traditional cigarettes less appealing and alternative less harmful nicotine products (licensed and unlicensed) more appealing and accessible to this group of high risk smokers.

Approved and emerging smoking cessation treatments for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: A narrative review

This review focuses on smoking cessation treatments for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. It concludes with comments on the significance of the research and why it constitutes an original contribution. We searched PubMed (National Library of Medicine), and PsycINFO (Ovid) (2006-2020) for studies on schizophrenic disorder (schizophrenia or psychotic or psychosis or severe mental illness) and smoking cessation treatment (smoking cessation treatment or varenicline or tobacco cessation or reduction or bupropion or NRT or behavioral treatment or e-cigarette). Studies found evidence suggesting that pharmacotherapy combined with behavioural therapy for smoking cessation is effective amongst smokers with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, although more long-term research is required. This review summarised and critically reviewed also studies on vaping as a smoking cessation strategy for smokers with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and evidence suggests that they may effective as smoking cessation tool and may be less harmful alternatives to combustible cigarette smoking. Consequently, e-cigarettes could be considered as an applicable instrument for Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) and smoking cessation. Overall, there are very few studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation in patients with schizophrenia and these studies are very small. They have promising results, but more research is needed.

E-cigarette use and associated factors among smokers with severe mental illness

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is more prevalent among people with severe mental illness (SMI) than the general population. E-cigarettes could provide an effective means of helping people to quit smoking. The aim of this paper is to explore the use of e-cigarettes and factors related to their use in people smokers with SMI.

METHODS

This is a cross sectional study including adult smokers with a documented diagnosis of SMI (ICD-10) recruited to the SCIMITAR + trial (2015-2016) from primary and secondary care. At baseline, participants were asked for demographic information and about their use of e-cigarettes. Data was were analysed to explore factors associated with e-cigarette use. After testing bivariate associations, logistic regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

Among 526 participants, 58.7% were male, mean age 46 years (SD 12.1), the majority (70.3%) had tried an e-cigarette. Among those who had ever tried an e-cigarette, over half (54.6%) reported the reason was to quit smoking, while 13.9% reported that the reason was to reduce smoking. Having an educational qualification of GCSE or higher (odds ratio 2.17, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.86, p = 0.008) and having made a quit attempt in the past six months (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.63, p = 0.032) was associated with ever having tried an e-cigarette.

CONCLUSIONS

Ever use of an e-cigarette was associated with education levels and recent quit attempts. Future trials could explore the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid in this participant group.

Use of and perceptions about electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) among people with mental health conditions or serious psychological distress, 2018

BACKGROUND

People with mental health conditions (MHC) experience health disparities related to combustible tobacco use, and recent studies suggest disproportionately high use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS, e.g., e-cigarettes) among adults with MHC. Continued surveillance of ENDS use by MHC status is needed, as well as in-depth examinations of why adults with versus without MHC are using ENDS.

METHODS

Using 2018 U.S. nationally representative data (N = 5878), this study examined associations between MHC and serious psychological distress (SPD) with ENDS use. Among current ENDS users (n = 544), associations between MHC and SPD with perceived benefits and reasons for using ENDS were also investigated.

RESULTS

Both MHC and SPD were associated with higher likelihood of having ever used ENDS, currently using ENDS, and currently using ENDS daily. There was an interaction between SPD and smoking status in predicting current ENDS use such that the association between SPD and higher current ENDS use was stronger among never smokers. Compared to those without MHC, participants with MHC indicated that using ENDS helped them feel more relaxed and that stress management was a more important reason for ENDS use.

CONCLUSIONS

U.S. adults with MHC (and particularly never smokers with SPD) report disproportionately high use of ENDS. Individuals with MHC may be particularly likely to use ENDS for relaxation and stress management.

Tobacco smoking, related harm and motivation to quit smoking in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

This narrative review focuses on the topic of tobacco smoking amongst people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and Scopus databases for schizophrenia spectrum disorders and smoking and included articles about the epidemiology of tobacco smoking in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, examining the relationship between smoking and mental health. This narrative review describes that a higher prevalence, frequency and impact of both high nicotine dependence and its harmful effects in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders compared with those in the general population. Despite several existent theories, the reasons for high smoking rates, the high dependence on nicotine and severity of nicotine withdrawal symptoms are not fully understood. The main aim of this paper is to inform mental health personnel and particularly clinical and health psychologists about the impact and role of tobacco smoking for smokers with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

Positive Expectancies for E-Cigarette Use and Anxiety Sensitivity Among Adults

INTRODUCTION

Although e-cigarette use is on the rise among youth and adults, there is little understanding of the individual difference factors at a cognitive level of analysis for e-cigarette beliefs and quit behavior.

METHOD

The present investigation sought to test a theoretically driven interactive model of positive expectancies for e-cigarettes and anxiety sensitivity (fear of the consequences of anxiety) among 551 adult e-cigarette users (50.6% female, Mage = 35.2 years, SD = 10.1).

RESULTS

Results indicated a significant interaction between positive expectancies for e-cigarette use and AS was significantly related to greater perceived benefits of e-cigarette use, greater perceived risk of e-cigarette use, and more serious attempts for trying to quit e-cigarettes. The significant interaction effect for each dependent variable was evident over and above the main effects as well as the covariates of sex, income, education, and concurrent combustible cigarette use. The form of this interaction indicated that e-cigarette users higher in AS who also maintained more positive outcome expectancies for e-cigarette use reported more perceived benefits as well as more perceived risk of e-cigarette use and engaged in more (failed) attempts to quit e-cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the current data suggest that individual differences in AS and positive expectancies may represent two important factors to consider in e-cigarette beliefs and quit attempts.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides the first empirical evidence of a transdiagnostic construct (anxiety sensitivity) in relation to e-cigarette use and how it interplays with positive expectancies for e-cigarette use beliefs and behavior. These novel data suggest that future clinical research may benefit by understanding the potential therapeutic role of anxiety sensitivity and expectancies for e-cigarette use behavior.

Electronic cigarette use and psychological distress in the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander adults compared with other racial/ethnic groups: Data from the National Health Interview Survey, 2014

Document the prevalence of electronic cigarette (E-cigarette) use among the native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander (NHPI) adults compared with other racial/ethnic groups, and examine associations between psychological distress and E-cigarette use. 2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and 2014 NHPI-NHIS were combined for comparisons. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Rao-Scott χ² test, and multivariable logistic regression. E-cigarette use among NHPI (5.6%) was significantly higher than among Blacks (2.1%), Hispanics (2.2%), and Asians (1.7%; p < .001). NHPI with Kessler 6 (K6) score of 11-24 had greater odds of using E-cigarettes (odds ratio [OR]: 3.90; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.81-8.42) as compared to those with a K6 score of 0. Associations between having a K6 score of 11-24 and using E-cigarettes were also found for Whites (OR: 3.49; CI: 2.44-4.99), Asians (OR: 5.29; CI: 1.29-21.70), and Hispanics (OR: 6.14; CI: 2.72-13.83). E-cigarette use was higher among NHPI relative to other racial/ethnic groups. NHPI with K6 score of 11-24 had greater odds of using E-cigarettes as compared to those with a K6 score of 0. Policies and strategies to reduce E-cigarette use among NHPI should give careful consideration to the associations between E-cigarette use and psychological distress in the NHPI population.

The oral health impact of electronic cigarette use: a systematic review

Introduction: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is becoming more prevalent and is particularly popular among adolescents and conventional smokers. While the oral health sequelae of conventional smoking are well-established, the impact of e-cigarettes on oral health is still unknown. This study aims to systematically review the available research evidence on the oral health impact of e-cigarette use.Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and used the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool to evaluate the evidence. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched for studies including case reports. Two independent reviewers extracted data and synthesized the findings.Results: Ninety-nine articles were included in this systematic review. Analyses of the articles yielded seven categories based on symptom similarity and/or focus: mouth effects, throat effects, periodontal effects, dental effects, cytotoxic/genotoxic/oncologic effects, oral microbiome effects, and traumatic/accidental injury. The majority of mouth and throat symptoms experienced by e-cigarette users were relatively minor and temporary, with some evidence that conventional smokers who switched to e-cigarettes experienced mitigation of these symptoms. E-cigarette exposure increased the risk for deteriorating periodontal, dental and gingival health as well as changes to the oral microbiome. Extensive dental damage as a result of e-cigarette explosions were described in case reports. Components of e-cigarette vapor have known cytotoxic, genotoxic, and carcinogenic properties.Conclusions: Although switching to e-cigarettes may mitigate oral symptomatology for conventional smokers, findings from this review suggest that a wide range of oral health sequelae may be associated with e-cigarette use. Well-designed studies to investigate oral health outcomes of e-cigarette use are needed.

Perceived barriers to quitting cigarettes among hospitalized smokers with substance use disorders: A mixed methods study

AIMS

Smoking cessation may promote long-term recovery in patients with substance use disorders (SUD). Yet smoking rates remain alarmingly high in this population. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, we examined smoking rates among hospitalized patients with SUD at a large safety-net hospital, and then characterized factors associated with smoking behaviors both quantitatively and qualitatively.

METHOD

We abstracted data from all hospital admissions (7/2016-6/2017) and determined demographics, substance use type, and other characteristics associated with cigarette use among those with SUD. We then conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 hospitalized SUD smokers. We analyzed transcripts to characterize factors that affect patients' smoking habits, focusing on the constructs of the Health Belief Model.

RESULTS

The prevalence of cigarette smoking among hospitalized smokers with SUD was three times higher than those without SUD. Qualitative analyses showed that patients perceived that smoking cigarettes was a less serious concern than other substances. Some patients feared that quitting cigarettes could negatively impact their recovery and perceived that clinicians do not prioritize treating tobacco dependence. Almost all patients with heroin use disorder described how cigarette use potentiated their heroin high. Many SUD patients are turning to vaping and e-cigarettes to quit smoking.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized patients with SUD have disproportionately high smoking rates and perceive multiple barriers to quitting cigarettes. When designing and implementing smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients with SUD, policymakers should understand and take into account how patients with SUD perceive smoking-related health risks and how that influences their decision to quit smoking.

Electronic Cigarette Use During a Randomized Trial of Interventions for Smoking Cessation Among Medicaid Beneficiaries with Mental Illness

Objective: People with mental illness have high rates of cigarette smoking, but many wish to quit. Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has become increasingly common, especially among smokers who wish to quit, but research on whether this facilitates quitting has been mixed, and little research has examined e-cigarette use among smokers with mental illness. This secondary analysis examined the associations between spontaneous e-cigarette use during cessation treatment and 6-month outcomes within a cessation trial among Medicaid beneficiaries with mental illness. Main outcomes were previously reported. Methods: Adult Medicaid beneficiaries receiving mental health services were recruited between 2012 and 2015. Eligible daily smokers were randomized, using equipoise stratification, to one of six cessation treatment conditions (combinations of prescriber visit for pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, and abstinence incentives; e-cigarette use was not a recommended intervention). Presence of any self-reported e-cigarette use, all tobacco product use, quit attempts, and biologically verified abstinence were assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The 456 participants who completed the 6-month assessment were included in logistic regressions, adjusting for subject characteristics and treatment condition, examining associations between self-reported, spontaneous e-cigarette use and 6-month outcomes. We evaluated three outcomes: biologically verified abstinence at 6 months, quit attempts over the treatment period, and heavy smoking (≥20 cigarettes per day) at 6 months. Results: Any use of e-cigarettes was reported by 192 participants (42.1%) during the treatment period. Use of pharmacotherapy was not different between those who used e-cigarettes and those who did not use e-cigarettes. A total of 13.5% of participants (n = 61) had achieved biologically verified abstinence at the 6-month assessment. E-cigarettes were not significantly associated with biologically verified abstinence, use of cessation pharmacotherapy, self-reported quit attempts, or heavy smoking at the 6-month assessment. Conclusions: Spontaneous e-cigarette use during cessation treatment was common among smokers with mental illness and was not associated with positive or negative treatment outcomes. The high rate of naturalistic e-cigarette use in this group suggests that e-cigarettes are an appealing strategy to obtain nicotine during cessation treatment that could be harnessed as a smoking cessation tool or for harm reduction.

Are Electronic Cigarettes an Effective Aid to Smoking Cessation or Reduction Among Vulnerable Groups? A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Smoking prevalence remains high in some vulnerable groups, including those who misuse substances, have a mental illness, are homeless, or are involved with the criminal justice system. E-cigarette use is increasing and may support smoking cessation/reduction.

METHODS

Systematic review of quantitative and qualitative data on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation/reduction among vulnerable groups. Databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Open Grey. Narrative synthesis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data.

RESULTS

2628 records and 46 full texts were screened; 9 studies were identified for inclusion. Due to low quality of evidence, it is uncertain whether e-cigarettes are effective for smoking cessation in vulnerable populations. A moderate quality study suggested that e-cigarettes were as effective as nicotine replacement therapy. Four studies suggested significant smoking reduction; however, three were uncontrolled and had sample sizes below 30. A prospective cohort study found no differences between e-cigarette users and nonusers. No significant adverse events and minimal side effects were identified. Qualitative thematic synthesis revealed barriers and facilitators associated with each component of the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, and behavior) model, including practical barriers; perceptions of effectiveness for cessation/reduction; design features contributing to automatic and reflective motivation; smoking bans facilitating practical opportunity; and social connectedness increasing social opportunity.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to identify the most appropriate device types for practicality and safety, level of support required in e-cigarette interventions, and to compare e-cigarettes with current best practice smoking cessation support among vulnerable groups.

IMPLICATIONS

Smoking prevalence among people with mental illness, substance misuse, homelessness, or criminal justice system involvement remains high. E-cigarettes could support cessation. This systematic review found limited quantitative evidence assessing effectiveness. No serious adverse events were identified. Qualitative thematic synthesis revealed barriers and facilitators mapping to each component of the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, and behavior) model, including practical barriers; perceived effectiveness; design features contributing to automatic and reflective motivation; smoking bans facilitating practical opportunity; and social connectedness increasing social opportunity. Further research should consider appropriate devices for practicality and safety, concurrent support, and comparison with best practice smoking cessation support.

A pre-post pilot study of electronic cigarettes to reduce smoking in people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Smoking is the largest single contributor to poor physical health and increased mortality in people with serious mental illnesses. The aim of the study was to investigate the utility of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a harm reduction intervention in this population.

METHOD

Fifty tobacco smokers with a psychotic disorder were enrolled onto a 24-week pilot study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02212041) investigating the efficacy of a 6-week free e-cigarette intervention to reduce smoking. Cigarette and e-cigarette use was self-reported at weekly visits, and verified using carbon monoxide tests. Psychopathology, e-cigarette acceptability and adverse effects were assessed using standardised scales.

RESULTS

There was a significant (⩾50%) reduction in cigarettes consumed per day between baseline and week 6 [F(2.596,116.800) = 25.878, p &lt; 0.001], and e-cigarette use was stable during this period [F(2.932,46.504) = 2.023, p = 0.115]. These changes were verified by significant carbon monoxide reductions between these time points [F(3.335,126.633) = 5.063, p = 0.002].

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of e-cigarettes is a potentially useful harm reduction intervention in smokers with a psychotic disorder.

Psychological distress and responses to comparative risk messages about electronic and combusted cigarettes

BACKGROUND

People with mental illness suffer disproportionately high health burdens of smoking. Communicating to these smokers that electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a less harmful alternative to combusted cigarettes might help them reduce their health risks by encouraging complete switching to e-cigarettes. However, such messages might also cause unintended consequences (e.g., dual use of both combusted and e-cigarettes). Our study examined how smokers with vs. without serious psychological distress (SPD) responded to messages communicating reduced harm of e-cigarettes in relation to cigarettes.

METHOD

In an online experiment, 1400 U.S. adult smokers with and without SPD viewed 1 of 6 messages about reduced harm of e-cigarettes compared to cigarettes or a control message. Then participants reported e-cigarette- and cigarette-related beliefs, and behavioral intentions.

RESULTS

Message type (comparative risk messages vs. control) did not interact with SPD status to produce differential impacts on smokers with and without SPD. Regardless of being exposed to a comparative risk message or a control message, smokers with SPD reported greater perceived absolute risk of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, greater support for tobacco control, greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help with quitting, and were less likely to report e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes compared to smokers without SPD.

DISCUSSION

Smokers with SPD had greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help quitting compared to smokers without SPD, which indicates that smokers with SPD may be optimistic about e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking.

Electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) use in relation to mental health conditions, past-month serious psychological distress and cigarette smoking status, 2017

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adults with mental health conditions (MHC) exhibit disproportionately high smoking prevalence and experience profound tobacco-related disparities. US nationally representative surveys from 2012 to 2015 found relatively high usage of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS; e.g. e-cigarettes) among adults with MHC. However, research has not examined these associations specifically among never smokers. Aims were to examine associations among MHC diagnosis, serious psychological distress (SPD) and ENDS use and to test whether associations varied by cigarette smoking status.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional US nationally representative survey.

SETTING

United States, 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 5762 adults (52.0% female; 64.8% non-Hispanic white, 11.4% non-Hispanic black, 15.9% Hispanic, 7.9% non-Hispanic other).

MEASUREMENTS

Outcomes were lifetime, current and current daily ENDS use. Predictors were lifetime MHC, past-month SPD and cigarette smoking status, and covariates were gender, age, race/ethnicity, education and annual household income.

FINDINGS

lifetime MHC and past-month SPD were each associated with higher likelihood of having ever used ENDS (P ≤ 0.001), currently using ENDS (P ≤ 0.001) and currently using ENDS daily (P < 0.05). There were interactions between MHC and smoking status in predicting ENDS use, such that MHC status predicted higher lifetime and current ENDS use specifically among never and current smokers. Never smokers with MHC had 2.62 higher odds [95% confidence interval, (CI) = 1.54, 4.45] of current ENDS use than those without MHC. Among never smokers, those with MHC indicated higher expectations that ENDS would improve relaxation and concentration (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In 2017, US adults with versus without mental health conditions (MHC) were more likely to use electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). In particular, both never and current smokers with MHC reported disproportionately high rates of current ENDS use.

Rates of electronic cigarette use among adults with a chronic mental illness

INTRODUCTION

Electronic cigarette (e-cig) use has increased dramatically over the past decade, rates of e-cig use among those with a chronic mental illness has largely been unexplored. Exploring this relationship for adults with a mental illness is necessary when examining the health needs of this population.

METHODS

Data from the 2016 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) was used to explore associations between e-cig use and chronic mental illness. E-cig use was explored in two different contexts, having tried an e-cig at least once and current e-cig use. Chronic mental illness was categorized as depression, anxiety, emotional disorder, or ADD, bipolar, schizophrenia, other disorder.

RESULTS

Rates of ever trying an e-cig and current e-cig use were higher among those with a chronic mental illness. Complex logistic regressions suggested having a chronic mental illness significantly increases the likelihood of both trying an e-cig and being an e-cig user.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased likelihood of e-cig use in chronic mental illness supports previous findings. This may be due to perceptions that e-cigs are less harmful and they provide ways of socially connecting with others.

IMPLICATIONS

Current knowledge surrounding e-cig use in this population is lacking. The 2016 NHIS allows for a nationally representative prediction of e-cig use in this population. This data is relevant in monitoring potential harm caused by e-cigs, in addition it may be helpful when assessing the value of e-cigs as a smoking cessation tool for those with a mental illness.

Weighing the Risks and Benefits of Electronic Cigarette Use in High-Risk Populations

This article reviews the current evidence on electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) safety and efficacy for smoking cessation, with a focus on smokers with cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, or serious mental illness. In the United States, adult smokers use e-cigarettes primarily to quit or reduce cigarette smoking. An understanding of the potential risks and benefits of e-cigarette use may help clinicians counsel smokers about the potential impact of e-cigarettes on health.

Motives and perceptions regarding electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use among adults with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates are disproportionately high among adults with mental health conditions (MHC), and recent research suggests that among former smokers, those with MHC are more likely to use electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). This study investigated reasons for ENDS use and related risk perceptions among individuals with versus without MHC.

METHODS

Among adult current ENDS users (n=550), associations between self-reported MHC diagnoses and motives for ENDS use and ENDS risk perceptions were examined, stratified by smoking status.

RESULTS

There were no significant associations between MHC status and ENDS motives or perceptions in the overall sample. However, current smokers with MHC indicated thinking more about how ENDS might improve their health, and former smokers with MHC reported thinking less about how ENDS might harm their health, compared to their counterparts without MHC. Former smokers with MHC rated several reasons for ENDS use (e.g., less harmful than regular cigarettes; to quit smoking; appealing flavors) as more important than did those without MHC.

CONCLUSIONS

Current and former smokers with MHC may be especially optimistic about health benefits of ENDS. However, they might also be prone to health risks of continued ENDS use or concurrent use with traditional cigarettes. It will be important for public health messaging to provide this population with accurate information about benefits and risks of ENDS.

Measuring perceptions related to e-cigarettes: Important principles and next steps to enhance study validity

Measuring perceptions associated with e-cigarette use can provide valuable information to help explain why youth and adults initiate and continue to use e-cigarettes. However, given the complexity of e-cigarette devices and their continuing evolution, measures of perceptions of this product have varied greatly. Our goal, as members of the working group on e-cigarette measurement within the Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS) network, is to provide guidance to researchers developing surveys concerning e-cigarette perceptions. We surveyed the 14 TCORS sites and received and reviewed 371 e-cigarette perception items from seven sites. We categorized the items based on types of perceptions asked, and identified measurement approaches that could enhance data validity and approaches that researchers may consider avoiding. The committee provides suggestions in four areas: (1) perceptions of benefits, (2) harm perceptions, (3) addiction perceptions, and (4) perceptions of social norms. Across these 4 areas, the most appropriate way to assess e-cigarette perceptions depends largely on study aims. The type and number of items used to examine e-cigarette perceptions will also vary depending on respondents' e-cigarette experience (i.e., user vs. non-user), level of experience (e.g., experimental vs. established), type of e-cigarette device (e.g., cig-a-like, mod), and age. Continuous formative work is critical to adequately capture perceptions in response to the rapidly changing e-cigarette landscape. Most important, it is imperative to consider the unique perceptual aspects of e-cigarettes, building on the conventional cigarette literature as appropriate, but not relying on existing conventional cigarette perception items without adjustment.

How do we determine the impact of e-cigarettes on cigarette smoking cessation or reduction? Review and recommendations for answering the research question with scientific rigor

AIMS

To propose a hierarchy of methodological criteria to consider when determining whether a study provides sufficient information to answer the question of whether e-cigarettes can facilitate cigarette smoking cessation or reduction.

DESIGN

A PubMed search to 1 February 2017 was conducted of all studies related to e-cigarettes and smoking cessation or reduction.

SETTINGS

Australia, Europe, Iran, Korea, New Zealand and the United States.

PARTICIPANTS AND STUDIES

91 articles.

MEASUREMENTS

Coders organized studies according to six proposed methodological criteria: (1) examines outcome of interest (cigarette abstinence or reduction), (2) assesses e-cigarette use for cessation as exposure of interest, (3) employs appropriate control/comparison groups, (4) ensures that measurement of exposure precedes the outcome, (5) evaluates dose and duration of the exposure and (6) evaluates the type and quality of the e-cigarette used.

FINDINGS

Twenty-four papers did not examine the outcomes of interest. Forty did not assess the specific reason for e-cigarette use as an exposure of interest. Twenty papers did not employ prospective study designs with appropriate comparison groups. The few observational studies meeting some of the criteria (duration, type, use for cessation) triangulated with findings from three randomized trials to suggest that e-cigarettes can help adult smokers quit or reduce cigarette smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a small proportion of studies seeking to address the effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation or reduction meet a set of proposed quality standards. Those that do are consistent with randomized controlled trial evidence in suggesting that e-cigarettes can help with smoking cessation or reduction.

Australian mental health care practitioners' practices and attitudes for encouraging smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction in smokers with severe mental illness

Reducing the burden of physical illness among people living with severe mental illnesses (SMI) is a key priority. Smoking is strongly associated with SMIs resulting in excessive smoking related morbidity and mortality in smokers with SMI. Smoking cessation advice and assistance from mental health practitioners would assist with reducing smoking and smoking-related harms in this group. This study examined the attitudes and practices of Australian mental health practitioners towards smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction for smokers with SMI, including adherence to the 5As (ask, assess, advise, assist and arrange follow up) of smoking cessation. We surveyed 267 Australian mental health practitioners using a cross-sectional, online survey. Most practitioners (77.5%) asked their clients about smoking and provided health education (66.7%) but fewer provided direct assistance (31.1-39.7%). Most believed that tobacco harm reduction strategies are effective for reducing smoking related risks (88.4%) and that abstinence from all nicotine should not be the only goal discussed with smokers with SMI (77.9%). Many respondents were unsure about the safety (56.9%) and efficacy (39.3%) of e-cigarettes. Practitioners trained in smoking cessation were more likely (OR: 2.9, CI: 1.5-5.9) to help their clients to stop smoking. Community mental health practitioners (OR: 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.9) and practitioners who were current smokers (OR: 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.9) were less likely to adhere to the 5As of smoking cessation intervention. The results of this study emphasize the importance and need for providing smoking cessation training to mental health practitioners especially community mental health practitioners.

Impact of E-cigarettes on Smoking and Related Outcomes in Veteran Smokers With Psychiatric Comorbidity

OBJECTIVE

Compared to the general U.S. population, smokers with comorbid psychiatric and/or substance use disorders have lower quit rates after evidence-based treatments and disproportionately high smoking-related deaths. Improved modalities for reducing tobacco-related harm in this subpopulation are needed. Because electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) can now deliver physiologically relevant levels of nicotine to consumers, they represent an additional nicotine delivery system that could be used in cessation interventions. While current data suggest that the use of e-cigarettes by smokers promotes a reduction in combustible cigarette use, smoking quit rates through use of e-cigarettes appears to be low. The goal of this study was to examine impact of e-cigarette use on combustible tobacco use as well as on the readiness to quit smoking and changes in nicotine dependence in a multimorbid population.

METHODS

We conducted a 4-week, open-label study in 43 military veteran smokers who had no immediate intention to stop smoking and were currently receiving psychiatric services from the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. Participants were provided with a study e-cigarette they could use ad libitum along with other tobacco products and were encouraged to attend weekly laboratory visits and a one-month follow-up visit. Main outcome measures were number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), the frequency of e-cigarette use, the amount of money spent on combustible cigarettes (U.S. dollars/week), alveolar carbon monoxide (CO) levels, and urine cotinine levels.

RESULTS

Mean e-cigarette use was 5.7 days per week and only 9% of participants used the e-cigarette for fewer than 4 days per week. Significant reductions in breath CO (9.3 ppm to 7.3 ppm, p < .02) and CPD (from 16.6 to 5.7, p < .001) were observed across study weeks, and no serious adverse events were reported. Three participants (10% of completers) reported smoking cessation that was corroborated biochemically. At one-month follow-up, motivation to quit smoking remained significantly higher and the level of nicotine dependence was significantly lower than at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarettes are acceptable to smokers with psychiatric comorbidities, as indicated by sustained and frequent e-cigarette use by 90% of participants, and may promote reduction and/or cessation of combustible cigarette use. E-cigarettes appear to be a viable harm reduction modality in smokers with psychiatric comorbidities.

Why Don't More Smokers Switch to Using E-Cigarettes: The Views of Confirmed Smokers

Whilst e-cigarettes have been characterised by Public Health England as being around 95% less harmful than combustible tobacco products, only a minority of current smokers (around 16% within the UK) are using these devices. In this paper we report the results of an online survey of 650 smokers in contact with a smokers’ rights group in the UK. A total of 91% of the smokers surveyed were smoking on a daily basis. Fifty nine percent reported having used electronic nicotine delivery systems, the majority of whom reported having used e-cigarettes. Those smokers that had not used these devices principally explained this in terms of the pleasure they derived from smoking. The features smokers’ liked most about e-cigarette had to do with the range of settings in which they could be used, the lack of an offensive smell associated with their use, the available flavours and the reduced level of harm. The elements which smokers liked least about e-cigarettes had to do with the vaping experience, the technology, the chemical nature of e-liquids and the complex technology that was associated with these devices. If a greater number of smokers are to be encouraged to take up e-cigarettes, it will be necessary not only to convey accurate information on the relative harm of these devices (compared to combustible tobacco products), but to ensure that they are able to be used in a wider range of settings than those within which smoking can currently occur and that the vaping experience more closely resembles the smoking experience.

Daily users compared to less frequent users find vape as or more satisfying and less dangerous than cigarettes, and are likelier to use non-cig-alike vaping products

We assessed the roles of perceived satisfaction and perceived danger and vaping-product-type as correlates of more frequent use of vaping products. In a baseline assessment of a longitudinal study of US Army Reserve/National Guard Soldiers and their partners (New York State, USA, 2014-2016), participants were asked about current use of vaping products (e-cigarettes) and perceived satisfaction and danger in comparison to cigarettes as well as type of product used. Fisher-exact tests and multiple ordinal logistic regressions were used. In multivariable and univariate models, more perceived satisfaction, less perceived danger, and use of non-cig-alike products were associated with more frequent use of vaping products (ps < 0.05, two-tailed). For self-selected, more frequent adult users, e-cigs can be at least as satisfying as cigarettes and often more satisfying and are perceived as less dangerous than cigarettes. Non-cig-alike products were more likely in daily users. Some concern that e-cigs are a gateway to cigarettes arises from assuming that e-cigs may not be as reinforcing and pleasurable as cigarettes. These results indicate that accurate perception of comparative risk and use of more effective-nicotine delivery product can produce for some users a highly-satisfying alternative to cigarettes.

Patterns of electronic cigarette use and level of psychological distress

BACKGROUND

Psychological distress has been correlated with higher levels of nicotine dependence. To date, the possible association between individuals' levels of psychological distress and e-cigarette use has not been investigated, despite the dramatic growth of e-cigarette use in the US. We examined this possible association using a nationally representative sample of US adults.

METHODS

A total of 36,697 adults from the 2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) were included. The Kessler 6 scale was used to measure psychological distress. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the association between level of psychological distress and e-cigarette use.

RESULTS

Both e-cigarette and cigarette use varied according to level of psychological distress as well as multiple socio-demographic characteristics. In a multivariate model, psychological distress was significantly associated with the following groups: (a) exclusive e-cigarette ever-use (aOR = 3.7; 95% CI = 1.6, 8.6), (b) current dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes (aOR = 4.6; 95% CI = 3.1, 6.7), (c) former cigarette use and ever use of e-cigarette (aOR = 3.2; 95% CI = 2.2, 4.8) and (d) current use of cigarettes only (aOR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.7, 2.6).

CONCLUSION

These are the first data to demonstrate that, as is true for cigarettes, e-cigarette use is associated with increased levels of psychological distress. Further large-scale, longitudinal studies are needed to determine the direction of this relationship and to evaluate the long-term positive and negative consequences of such use.

Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Rapid developments in e-cigarettes, or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), and the evolution of the overall tobacco product marketplace warrant frequent evaluation of the published literature. The purpose of this article is to report updated findings from a comprehensive review of the published scientific literature on ENDS.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The authors conducted a systematic review of published empirical research literature on ENDS through May 31, 2016, using a detailed search strategy in the PubMed electronic database, expert review, and additional targeted searches. Included studies presented empirical findings and were coded to at least one of nine topics: (1) Product Features; (2) Health Effects; (3) Consumer Perceptions; (4) Patterns of Use; (5) Potential to Induce Dependence; (6) Smoking Cessation; (7) Marketing and Communication; (8) Sales; and (9) Policies; reviews and commentaries were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted by multiple coders (October 2015 to August 2016) into a standardized form and synthesized qualitatively by topic.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There were 687 articles included in this systematic review. The majority of studies assessed patterns of ENDS use and consumer perceptions of ENDS, followed by studies examining health effects of vaping and product features.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies indicate that ENDS are increasing in use, particularly among current smokers, pose substantially less harm to smokers than cigarettes, are being used to reduce/quit smoking, and are widely available. More longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to evaluate the impact of ENDS on population-level tobacco use and determine the health effects of longer-term vaping.

Use of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems among Adults with Mental Health Conditions, 2015

Adults with mental health conditions (MHC) are especially likely to smoke and experience tobacco-related health disparities. Individuals with MHC may also use electronic nicotine delivery devices (ENDS) at disproportionately high rates. However, there is a relative dearth of knowledge regarding ENDS use among individuals with MHC. In a large representative sample of U.S. adults (n = 6051), associations between self-reported MHC diagnoses and ENDS use and susceptibility were examined, stratified by smoking status. Participants with MHC were approximately 1.5 times more likely to have used ENDS in their lifetime and almost twice as likely to currently use ENDS as those without MHC. MHC status was most strongly linked to higher ENDS use among former smokers, and former smokers with MHC were more likely to report using ENDS during past smoking quit attempts than those without MHC. Among participants who had not tried ENDS, former smokers with MHC were especially susceptible to future ENDS use. The potential advantage of ENDS for cessation purposes should be balanced with the risk of attracting former smokers with MHC to ENDS.

Motivations and Limitations Associated with Vaping among People with Mental Illness: A Qualitative Analysis of Reddit Discussions

This study aims to understand the nature and significance of online lay discussions about e-cigarettes and mental illness. We systematically searched the website Reddit.com using keywords related to e-cigarettes and mental illness. We coded relevant posts into themes under the framework of motivations for and limitations of vaping for people with mental illness. The thematic analysis included 3263 comments from 133 discussion threads. Six themes were classified as motivations to vape for people with mental illness: Self-medication; Quitting smoking; Freedom and control; Hobby; Social connectedness; and Motivation from caregivers and online communities. The limitations of vaping included: Unsatisfactory substitute for cigarettes and psychiatric medicines; Drug interactions; Nicotine addiction; Risks of e-liquid; Practical difficulties and Cost. People with mental illness; and their carers; use online discussion boards like Reddit to discuss the benefits and limitations of e-cigarettes for people with mental illness. Both positive and negative views exist. Media platforms like Reddit may shape the opinions of stakeholders and generate lay expertise about contentious health topics such as e-cigarettes. These findings have implications for policy and practice concerning assisting smokers with mental illness to reduce their health risk through switching to e-cigarettes.