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

Tobacco use disorder in patients with other mental disorders: a dual disorder perspective from clinical neuroscience

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of disability and preventable deaths worldwide, but it should be differentiated from tobacco use disorder, which is, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a bona fide mental disorder. The rapid delivery of nicotine to the brain activates acetylcholine receptors and stimulates the release of dopamine, both systems implicated in other mental disorders. Rates of tobacco use disorder are much higher among people suffering from other mental disorders and these patients find it more difficult to quit. Dual disorders, from a transdiagnostic perspective, identify patients with substance use disorder, in this case tobacco use disorder, and other mental disorders. A dual disorder is a complex clinical condition that is often underdiagnosed, undertreated, and difficult to manage. Appropriate and integrated tobacco use disorder treatment programs for people also suffering from other mental disorders could improve outcomes. Bio-psycho-social approaches to tobacco use disorder include specific biological treatments (e.g., bupropion, varenicline, cytisine, nicotine replacement therapy or deep trans-magnetic stimulation). However, these treatments don't have the same outcomes in patients with dual disorders. Therefore, as in other dual disorders, harm reduction measures, such as vaping nicotine through electronic cigarettes or tobacco replacement therapies should be considered as alternative tools for dual tobacco use disorder management. These clinical considerations emerge from a narrative literature review and expert consensus and will specifically address considerations for changes in clinical practice to improve the treatment of tobacco use disorder and other mental disorders.

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.

Respiratory health effects of e-cigarette substitution for tobacco cigarettes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

E-cigarettes (electronic nicotine delivery system, ENDS) have been presented as a harm reduction strategy for people who smoke tobacco cigarettes but who cannot achieve abstinence, or for those who wish to continue to enjoy nicotine and the habit of smoking. What are the health effects of the substitution of ENDS for tobacco cigarettes? This systematic review evaluates the evidence of human clinical tests on the respiratory effects of ENDS use in participants who smoke tobacco cigarettes.

METHODS

A registered and published protocol was developed conforming to PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR2 standards. The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the CENTRAL Cochrane Library and updated to May 2022. Three supplementary searches and a grey literature search were performed. Studies were evaluated with the JBI quality tools and the Oxford Catalogue of Bias. Due to the heterogeneity (diversity) of the studies, a narrative data synthesis was performed on the test findings plus three sub-group analyses.

RESULTS

The review consists of sixteen studies and twenty publications. Spirometry tests comprised the majority of the data. In total, 66 respiratory test measurements were reported, out of which 43 (65%) were not significant. Statistically significant findings were mixed, with 9 tests showing improvements and 14 measuring declines, none of which was clinically relevant. Ten studies were rated at a high risk of bias, and six had some concerns primarily due to inadequate research designs and the conduct of the studies. Reporting bias was documented in thirteen studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the studies showed no difference in respiratory parameters. This indicates that ENDS substitution for smoking likely does not result in additional harm to respiratory health. Due to the low quality of the studies, confidence in the conclusions is rated as low. Robust studies with a longer duration and sufficient power are required to validate any potential benefits or possible harms of ENDS substitution. Registration PROSPERO #CRD42021239094, International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/29084.

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.

Clinical testing of the cardiovascular effects of e-cigarette substitution for smoking: a living systematic review

Some persons who smoke have substituted e-cigarettes for tobacco cigarettes, either completely or partially. What effect does this have on cardiovascular functioning? We conducted a living systematic review on human clinical studies measuring the cardiovascular effects of e-cigarette substitution for smoking. The Scopus, PubMed, and CENTRAL Cochrane Library databases were searched on January 31 and April 29, 2021. Three secondary searches and a grey literature search were conducted. Included study designs were randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental clinical trials, and cohort studies. Risk of bias and study quality were evaluated with the JBI Critical Appraisal tools and the Oxford Catalogue of Bias. The systematic review covered 25 studies comprising 1810 participants who smoked. Twenty studies were rated at high risk of bias, and five as some concerns. A tabular synthesis by direction of effect was conducted due to heterogeneity in the data. Nearly two-thirds of the test analyses indicated that e-cigarette use had no significance difference compared with tobacco cigarettes on heart rate, blood pressure, and in other cardiovascular tests. In two studies, participants with hypertension experienced a clinically relevant reduction in systolic blood pressure after 1 year of e-cigarette use. E-cigarette substitution incurs no additional cardiovascular risks, and some possible benefits may be obtained, but the evidence is of low to very low certainty. An update search on May 30, 2022 retrieved five studies that did not alter our conclusion.Registration PROSPERO #CRD42021239094.

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.

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.

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

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

Nicotine Inhalation and Suicide: Clinical Correlates and Behavioral Mechanisms

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Extensive evidence links smoking and suicide independently of psychiatric diagnoses, but there are questions about the pathophysiology and specificity of this relationship. We examined characteristics of this linkage to identify potential transdiagnostic mechanisms in suicide and its prevention.

METHODS

We reviewed literature that associated suicide with smoking and e-cigarettes, including the temporal sequence of smoking and suicide risk and their shared behavioral risk factors of sensitization and impulsivity.

RESULTS

Smoking is associated with increased suicide across psychiatric diagnoses and in the general population, proportionately to the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Rapid nicotine uptake into the brain through inhalation of conventional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarette), or even second-hand smoke can facilitate long-term sensitization and short-term impulsivity. Both impair action regulation and predispose to negative affect, continued smoking, and suicidal behavior. Intermittent hypoxia, induced by cigarettes or e-cigarettes, synergistically promotes impulsivity and sensitization, exacerbating suicidality. Two other shared behavioral risks also develop negative urgency (combined impulsivity and negative affect) and cross-sensitization to stressors or to other addictive stimuli. Finally, early smoking onset, promoted by e-cigarettes in never-smokers, increases subsequent suicide risk.

CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Prevention or cessation of nicotine inhalation can strategically prevent suicidality and other potentially lethal behavior regardless of psychiatric diagnoses. Medications for reducing smoking and suicidality, especially in younger smokers, should consider the neurobehavioral mechanisms for acute impulsivity and longer-term sensitization, potentially modulated more effectively through glutamate antagonism rather than nicotine substitution. (Am J Addict 2021;30:316-329).

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.

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.

Management of Cardiovascular Health in People with Severe Mental Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review evidence regarding the association between bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, henceforth referred to as severe mental disorders (SMD), and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, its mechanisms, and the interventions to reduce this burden.

RECENT FINDINGS

Much of the loss in life expectancy in people with SMD remains driven by cardiovascular mortality. Antipsychotics and mood stabilizers are associated with negative cardio-metabolic outcomes, but large inter-individual differences are observed, and not treating SMD might be associated with even greater cardiovascular mortality. Classical modifiable cardiovascular risk factors remained inadequately screened and, once identified, too seldom treated in people with SMD. After a myocardial infarction, aggressive tertiary prevention may be as effective in people with SMD as in the general population but is less prescribed. Reduced healthcare quality and increased prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors may not fully explain the excess cardiovascular mortality associated with SMDs, which themselves should be considered risk factors in risk calculators. Hazardous health behaviors, the cardio-metabolic adverse effects of medications, and a reduced access to quality healthcare remain priority targets for intervention.

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.

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.

An exploratory non-randomized study of a 3-month electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) intervention with people accessing a homeless supported temporary accommodation service (STA) in Ireland

BACKGROUND

Smoking is endemic amongst people accessing homeless services, and they are disproportionately affected by smoking-related diseases. This paper reports on the results of a 3-month small scale intervention which explored the efficacy, challenges and opportunities of using electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) to support cessation of tobacco smoking with people accessing an Irish supported temporary accommodation (STA) homeless service. It considers the results of this intervention with reference to the balance of harms between the use of vaping to support smoking cessation and continued smoking.

METHODS

Twenty-three participants were recruited. Demographic data, carbon monoxide (CO) measurements, homelessness status and smoking history were recorded. Participants were given an ENDS device and two 10-ml bottles containing e-liquid available in several flavours and at several strengths. Participants could pick up new bottles on a weekly basis. At weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12, the Fagerström Test and Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale (MPSS) were administered.

RESULTS

Over 75% of the residents in the participating hostel were recruited (23/30). However, there was a substantial loss to follow-up (n = 14) as a result of data protection issues, the transient nature of the population of interest and non-compliance with the intervention. Self-reported reductions in cigarette consumption were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001). However, reductions in carbon monoxide measurements were not statistically significant. Decreases in Fagerström Nicotine Dependence Test were statistically significant (p = 0.001), but decreases in MPSS "urge to smoke" and "strength of urges" composite scores were not. Reported side effects included coughing, runny nose, bleeding nose, slight sweating, dizziness, increased phlegm and a burning sensation at the back of the throat. Barriers to engagement were peer norms, vaping restrictions in accommodation and adverse life events. Positive effects reported included increased energy, less coughing, better breathing and financial benefits. An improvement in the domain "poor concentration" was also found to be statistically significant (p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

ENDS-based interventions may be effective with this population. Future research should aim to improve follow-up, consider including behavioural components and monitor health effects in relation to ongoing concerns around risks and the balance of harms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered retrospectively ISRCTN14767579.

Electronic cigarettes: A position statement from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand

The TSANZ develops position statements where insufficient data exist to write formal clinical guidelines. In 2018, the TSANZ addressed the question of potential benefits and health impacts of electronic cigarettes (EC). The working party included groups focused on health impacts, smoking cessation, youth issues and priority populations. The 2018 report on the Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes from the United States NASEM was accepted as reflective of evidence to mid-2017. A search for papers subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals was conducted in August 2018. A small number of robust and important papers published until March 2019 were also identified and included. Groups identified studies that extended, modified or contradicted the NASEM report. A total of 3793 papers were identified and reviewed, with summaries and draft position statements developed and presented to TSANZ membership in April 2019. After feedback from members and external reviewers, a collection of position statements was finalized in December 2019. EC have adverse lung effects and harmful effects of long-term use are unknown. EC are unsuitable consumer products for recreational use, part-substitution for smoking or long-term exclusive use by former smokers. Smokers who require support to quit smoking should be directed towards approved medication in conjunction with behavioural support as having the strongest evidence for efficacy and safety. No specific EC product can be recommended as effective and safe for smoking cessation. Smoking cessation claims in relation to EC should be assessed by established regulators.

Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation among people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

People with schizophrenia have higher rates of smoking than the general population, and lower quit rates. Several randomised controlled trials have investigated the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation over the past 20 years. We did a systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis of smoking abstinence to guide decision making in offering pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inception to Sept 30, 2019, for randomised controlled trials of varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders or psychotic disorders who were smokers at the time of study recruitment. Data were extracted from published studies on smoking abstinence outcomes and psychotic symptoms. We did pairwise and network meta-analyses for the primary outcome of smoking abstinence. Sensitivity analyses were done on study inclusion criteria, duration, quality, and location. This study is registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO, CRD42018102343.

FINDINGS

A total of 15 111 records were identified by the database searches, and 163 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 145 articles were then excluded for several reasons including insufficient data, or abstracts published in later studies, and 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In the pairwise meta-analyses, four studies with 394 participants assessed varenicline (RR 3·75, 95% CI 1·96-7·19, p<0·0001; I²=0%), four studies with bupropion and 292 participants (RR 3·40, 95% CI 1·58-7·34, p=0·0002; I²=0%), and three studies with 561 participants assessed nicotine replacement therapy (RR 4·27, 95% CI 1·71-10·65, p=0·0002; I²=0%). All three treatments were deemed superior to placebo. In the network meta-analysis, varenicline was superior to bupropion (RR 2·02, 95% CI 1·04-3·93; p=0·038) but no significant difference was found between varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy, or bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy. No agents were associated with changes in psychiatric symptoms, but varenicline was associated with higher rates of nausea than was placebo.

INTERPRETATION

We found evidence to support use of pharmacological agents for smoking cessation for people with psychosis. Varenicline might be superior to bupropion; however, additional direct testing and combination trials of pharmacological agents for smoking cessation are required to inform clinical decision making for people with psychosis.

FUNDING

None.

Mental health, smoking, harm reduction and quit attempts - a population survey in England

BACKGROUND

Tobacco control strategies have engendered overall declines in smoking; however, a large gap remains between people with and without mental health problems, causing substantial health inequalities. Population-level information on barriers and opportunities for improvements is scarce. We aimed to assess mental health status of cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers ('past-year smokers') in England, and smoking and harm reduction behaviour and quit attempts by mental health status.

METHODS

Data were collected from 5637 current and 434 recent ex-smokers in 2016/17 in household surveys of representative samples of adults. We calculated weighted prevalence of different indicators of mental health problem: a) ever diagnosis, b) none, moderate, serious past-month distress, c) past-year treatment. We compared weighted smoking status, cigarette type, dependence, motivation to stop smoking, cutting down, use of nicotine replacement therapy or e-cigarettes, short-term abstinence, and quit attempts according to mental health status.

RESULTS

Among past-year smokers: 35.9% ever had a diagnosis; 24.3% had experienced moderate, an additional 9.7% serious, past-month distress; 21.9% had had past-year treatment. Those with an indication of a mental health problem were more highly dependent and more likely to smoke roll-your-own cigarettes but also more likely to be motivated to stop smoking, to cut down, use nicotine replacement therapy or e-cigarettes and to have attempted to quit in the past year.

CONCLUSIONS

About a third of cigarette smokers in England have mental health problems. Interventions should address their increased dependence and leverage higher prevalence of harm reduction behaviours, motivation to stop and attempts to stop smoking.

Mental health professionals' perceptions, judgements and decision-making practices regarding the use of electronic cigarettes as a tobacco harm reduction intervention in mental healthcare: A qualitative focus group study

BACKGROUND

Smoking prevalence remains significantly higher among individuals with mental health conditions compared with the general population. Tobacco harm reduction (THR) in the form of replacing cigarettes for electronic cigarettes (ECs) is an alternative approach which may prove useful for these smokers who find it difficult to quit. Exploring how mental health professionals' (MHPs) perceive ECs, and how these influence decision making regarding their use in clinical settings is essential to determine the feasibility of incorporating ECs into the treatment pathway.

METHODS

We conducted six focus groups between March and August 2017. A total of 39 MHPs were recruited from mental healthcare services in England. Discussions were guided by a semi-structured guide, and responses were recorded, transcribed and coded using thematic framework analysis.

RESULTS

MHPs generally adopt a risk-averse approach when judging the safety and suitability of ECs. Risk-aversion was influenced by perceived obscurity surrounding ECs and THR, as well as high exposure to adverse and unreliable information regarding ECs, and perceived analogies between ECs and conventional cigarettes. Some MHPs adopt a pragmatic approach when making decisions based on THR and EC use in daily practice by considering the context of treatment and patient circumstances. However, this is often accompanied by a high degree of caution and misconceptions which limits the potential benefit this intervention could have in mental healthcare settings.

CONCLUSION

Improved dissemination of national guidance and scientific literature regarding THR and ECs is essential in mental healthcare to eliminate misconceptions and better inform MHPs evidence-based decision-making practices.

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.