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

[Smoking cessation during pregnancy]

Smoking during pregnancy is associated with negative pregnancy and perinatal health outcomes. Physiological and societal particularities can modify the smoking behavior of pregnant women. Pregnancy is a teachable moment for smoking cessation. Increased nicotine clearance may lead to exacerbated tobacco withdrawal symptoms and desire to smoke, which need to be taken into account when helping pregnant smokers to quit. Although most pregnant smokers try to quit on their own, 12% of pregnant women in France reported smoking in 2021 during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy. Health care professionals should screen for tobacco consumption and assess the level of addiction. Management of smoking cessation can be multidisciplinary, including non-pharmacological support such as counselling, behavioral support, financial reward contingent on abstinence, and medication (nicotine replacement therapies). Assessment and limitation of secondhand smoke exposure (SHS) is needed because SHS can also have negative maternal and fetal consequences. Management of relapse during the postpartum period is also to be anticipated; in 2021, it concerned 22.4% of women who had stopped smoking during pregnancy. While electronic cigarette use is increasing overall and among pregnant women who smoke (5.4 before pregnancy, 1.3% during the 3rd trimester in 2021), well-conducted smoking cessation studies are necessary to assess its benefits and potential risks in this specific group of smokers.

The potential of new nicotine and tobacco products as tools for people who smoke to quit combustible cigarettes - a systematic review of common practices and guidance towards a robust study protocol to measure cessation efficacy

New types of nicotine and tobacco products like electronic cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products or nicotine pouches have been discussed as less harmful alternatives to combustible cigarettes and other toxic forms of tobacco products. Their harm reduction potential lay in the efficient transition away from smoking to those new products. Numerous studies addressing the cessation efficacy of ECs have been published with contradictory outcomes. Yet, a comprehensive Cochrane review concluded with high certainty on the cessation efficacy of ECs. This prompted us to perform a review to identify weaknesses in common study designs and to summarize best practices for the study design on the potential of new nicotine products as cessation aids. 120 articles retrieved from Medline were found to be eligible. Most of the studies in the field were interventional trials while observational studies played a minor role in the evaluation of smoking cessation. Efficacy was predominantly assessed for ECs in 77% of the reports while heated tobacco (17%) and non-combustible products (11%) were less frequently investigated up to now. Measures to determine the efficacy were questionnaire-based assessments as well as use documentation/prevalence and abstinence rates. Studies varied largely in their duration and sample size with medians of 3 months and 156.5 participants, respectively.With the help of this review, we identified several weaknesses in the common study designs. One major limitation in longitudinal trials was the lack of compliance measures suited to verify the use status over longer time periods, relying solely on self-reports. Moreover, the motivation of the participants to quit was rarely defined and a profound familiarization period was not taken into account for the majority of the studies. To what extent such weaknesses influence the outcome of the studies was beyond the scope of this review. We encourage researchers to consider the recommendations which resulted from this review in order to determine the abuse liability and cessation efficacy of the products in a more robust manner. Finally, we like to call attention to the missing data for low- and middle-income countries which would require quitting strategies most urgently to combat the tobacco smoking epidemic.

Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Smoking during pregnancy is harmful to maternal and child health. Vaping is used for smoking cessation but evidence on health effects during pregnancy is scarce. We conducted a systematic review of health outcomes of vaping during pregnancy.

METHODS

We searched six databases for maternal/fetal/infant outcomes and vaping, including quantitative, English language, human studies of vaping during pregnancy, to November 10th, 2023. We assessed study quality with the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. We focused on comparisons of exclusive-vaping with non-use of nicotine and tobacco products and with smoking. Presentation is narrative as the studies were of insufficient quality to conduct meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 26 studies, with 765,527 women, with one randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing vaping and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation, 23 cohort studies and two case-control studies. While the RCT met 4/5 quality criteria, the quality of the cohort studies and case-control studies was poor; none adequately assessed exposure to smoking and vaping. For studies comparing exclusive-vaping with 'non-use', more reported no increased risk for vaping (three studies) than reported increased risk for maternal pregnancy/postpartum outcomes (one study) and for fetal and infant outcomes (20 studies no increased risk, four increased risk), except for birth-weight and neurological outcomes where two studies each observed increased and no increased risk. When the RCT compared non-users with those not smoking but vaping or using NRT, irrespective of randomisation, they reported no evidence of risk for vaping/NRT. For studies comparing exclusive-vaping and exclusive-smoking, most studies provided evidence for a comparable risk for different outcomes. One maternal biomarker study revealed a lower risk for vaping. For small-for-gestational-age/mean-birth-centile equal numbers of studies found lower risk for vaping than for smoking as found similar risk for the two groups (two each).

CONCLUSIONS

While more studies found no evidence of increased risk of exclusive-vaping compared with non-use and evidence of comparable risk for exclusive-vaping and exclusive-smoking, the quality of the evidence limits conclusions. Without adequate assessment of exposure to vaping and smoking, findings cannot be attributed to behaviour as many who vape will have smoked and many who vape may do so at low levels.

STUDY REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/rfx4q/ .

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): Frequency of use and smoking-cessation efforts among U.S. women of reproductive age

OBJECTIVE

Reducing harm from combustible cigarette use among women of reproductive age (WRA) is critical given their potential vulnerability to multigenerational adverse impacts of cigarette smoking. Although electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are not approved smoking cessation aids in the US, many WRA who smoke report using ENDS to help quit smoking. Associations between ENDS use patterns and smoking-cessation efforts among US WRA remain unclear.

METHODS

Using the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, we examined whether baseline (Wave 3 or 4) ENDS use frequency predicted (a) making a cigarette quit attempt (QA) and (b) successful quitting by follow-up (Wave 4 or 5, respectively) among WRA (N = 2834; 72.1% non-Hispanic White).

RESULTS

Daily ENDS use predicted greater adjusted odds of making a QA than non-daily (AOR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.03, 2.59) and no ENDS use (AOR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.23, 3.14), and greater odds of successful smoking cessation than non-daily use (AOR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.31, 4.26). Daily ENDS use did not significantly improve odds of successful smoking cessation compared to no ENDS use (AOR = 1.62, 95% CI = 0.97, 2.69). Non-daily ENDS use did not significantly improve odds of making a QA (AOR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.94, 1.56) and hindered successful smoking cessation compared to no ENDS use (AOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.48, 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that benefits of ENDS for smoking cessation in WRA may be greatest among those who use ENDS daily. WRA who choose to use ENDS to help quit would be well-informed by evidence that non-daily ENDS use may impede smoking cessation.

Associations between vaping and self-reported respiratory symptoms in young people in Canada, England and the US

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of youth nicotine vaping has increased, heightening concerns around negative health effects. This study aimed to compare self-reported respiratory symptoms among youth by vaping behaviours.

METHODS

Participants (n = 39,214) aged 16-19 from the 2020 and 2021 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC) Youth Tobacco and Vaping Surveys (Canada, England, US). Weighted multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between reporting any of five respiratory symptoms in the past week (shortness of breath, wheezing, chest pain, phlegm, cough) and: past 30-day smoking and/or vaping; lifetime/current vaping. Among past-30-day vapers (n = 4644), we assessed associations between symptoms and vaping frequency, use of nicotine salts, usual flavour and device type(s).

RESULTS

Overall, 27.8% reported experiencing any of the five respiratory symptoms. Compared with youth who had only vaped, those who had only smoked had similar odds of symptoms [adjusted odds ratio, OR (95% confidence interval, CI): 0.97 (0.85-1.10)], those who both smoked and vaped had higher odds [1.26 (1.12-1.42)], and those who had done neither, lower odds [0.67 (0.61-0.72)]. Compared with those who had never vaped, past use, experimentation and current regular or occasional use were all associated with higher odds. Reporting usually using nicotine salts was associated with higher odds of symptoms [1.43 (1.22-1.68)] than non-salt but was often uncertain. Compared with tobacco flavour (including with menthol), menthol/mint and sweets flavours were associated with similar odds; fruit [1.44 (1.07-1.93)], multiple [1.76 (1.30-2.39)] and 'other' [2.14 (1.45-3.16)] flavours with higher odds. All device types were associated with similar odds.

CONCLUSIONS

Among youth, vaping was associated with increased reporting of past-week respiratory symptoms. Among those who vaped, some flavour types and potentially nicotine salts were associated with respiratory symptoms.

Safety of e-cigarettes and nicotine patches as stop-smoking aids in pregnancy: Secondary analysis of the Pregnancy Trial of E-cigarettes and Patches (PREP) randomized controlled trial

AIMS

The aim of this study was to examine the safety of e-cigarettes (EC) and nicotine patches (NRT) when used to help pregnant smokers quit.

DESIGN

A recent trial of EC versus NRT reported safety outcomes in the randomized arms. We conducted a further analysis based on product use.

SETTING

Twenty-three hospitals in England and a stop-smoking service in Scotland took part.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants comprised 1140 pregnant smokers.

INTERVENTIONS

We compared women using and not using EC and NRT regularly during pregnancy.

MEASUREMENTS

Measurements included nicotine intake compared with baseline, birth weight, other pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal respiratory symptoms and relapse in early abstainers.

FINDINGS

Use of EC was more common than use of NRT (47.3% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001). Women who stopped smoking (abstainers) and used EC at the end-of-pregnancy (EOP) reduced their salivary cotinine by 45% [49.3 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -79.8 to -10]. Only one abstainer used NRT at EOP. In dual users, cotinine increased by 19% (24 ng/ml, 95% CI = 3.5-68). In women reporting a reduction of at least 50% in cigarette consumption, cotinine levels increased by 10% in those using nicotine products and by 9% in those who did not. Birth weights in dual users and exclusive smokers were the same (3.1 kg). Birth weight in abstainers using either nicotine product was higher than in smokers [3.3 kg, standard deviation (SD) = 0.7] versus 3.1 kg, SD = 0.6; difference = 0.15 kg, 95% CI = 0.05-0.25) and not different from abstainers not using nicotine products (3.1 kg, SD = 0.8). Abstainers and smokers using nicotine products had no worse pregnancy outcomes or more adverse events than abstainers and smokers not using them. EC users reported more improvements than non-users in cough [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37-0.93] and phlegm (aRR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.31-0.92), controlling for smoking status. EC or NRT use had no association with relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular use of e-cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes.

Provision of E-Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy: Perceptions and Experiences of Pregnant Women from Two UK Sites

INTRODUCTION

Smoking in pregnancy is associated with negative health outcomes for both mothers and babies; e-cigarettes, which contain nicotine without hazardous tobacco, may offer an additional smoking cessation strategy for pregnant women. Although e-cigarettes are being increasingly offered within services, there is limited understanding about whether e-cigarettes can improve smoking cessation support for pregnant individuals. This study aimed to explore service users' experiences of using e-cigarettes as a tool for smoking cessation during pregnancy.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 women who had accepted one of two pilots and were analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis. The findings from each site were integrated to develop qualitative insight.

RESULTS

Participants largely had positive perceptions of the free and easy-to-use e-cigarette, preferring it to nicotine replacement therapies. The desire to have a healthy pregnancy and baby and the inclusion of non-judgemental behavioural support facilitated motivation to quit. Many participants reduced or quit tobacco use, with positive social and health implications reported. However, numerous barriers to quitting were present and intentions about long-term quitting of combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes were mixed and uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing e-cigarettes within smoking cessation services was indicated to be a positive and effective strategy for pregnant women trying to quit tobacco. However, numerous barriers to quitting and staying quit remained, suggesting scope for further improvements to smoking cessation support for pregnant women.

Comparing Adult Smokers Who Switched to JUUL versus Continuing Smokers: Biomarkers of Exposure and of Potential Harm and Respiratory Symptoms

OBJECTIVES

Real-world evidence on exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) and on biological effects in cigarette smokers who switch to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) can inform the health effects of switching.

AIMS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional, observational study assessed adults who had smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day for ≥10 years, comparing 124 continuing cigarette smokers (Smokers) to 140 former smokers who switched to JUUL-brand ENDS exclusively for ≥6 months (Switchers). Assessments included biomarkers of exposure (BOEs) to select HPHCs, biomarkers of potential harm (BOPHs) related to smoking-related diseases, psychometric assessments of dependence on cigarettes and ENDS, respectively, and respiratory symptoms. Planned analyses compared geometric means, adjusted for demographic covariates; further analyses adjusted for additional lifestyle and smoking history covariates.

RESULTS

Nicotine levels were significantly higher in Switchers (median time switched = 3 years), who were unusually heavy users of JUUL. All other BOEs, including NNAL and HPMA3 (primary endpoints), were significantly lower in Switchers than Smokers. Most BOPHs (sICAM-1 [primary], and eg, white blood cell count, MCP1, HbA1c) were significantly lower in Switchers than Smokers; HDL was significantly higher. Switchers reported significantly lower dependence on JUUL than Smokers did on cigarettes, and respiratory symptom scores were significantly lower among Switchers than Smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to continuing smokers, smokers who switched to JUUL had substantially lower exposures to multiple HPHCs, favorable differences in markers of inflammation, endothelial function, oxidative stress, and cardiovascular risk, and fewer respiratory symptoms. These findings suggest that switching from cigarettes to JUUL likely reduces smokers' health risks.

IMPLICATIONS

Short-term confinement studies and randomized clinical trials demonstrate that adult smokers who switch completely to ENDS experience substantial reductions in exposure to many smoking-related toxicants. This study extends those findings to longer periods of switching to JUUL-brand ENDS (almost 3 years on average) under naturalistic use conditions in real-world settings and also found that switching to JUUL resulted in favorable differences in BOPHs more proximally related to smoking-induced disease, as well as in respiratory symptoms. Smokers who switch to ENDS reduce their exposure to toxicants, likely reducing their disease risk.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100048156.

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.

Association of e-Cigarette Use and Postpartum Depression: Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System 2016-2019

Background: Postpartum depression (PPD) is a prevalent public health concern. Combustible cigarette use is associated with increased risk of PPD. While electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use during pregnancy is linked to increased risk of depressive symptoms during pregnancy, the relationship between e-cigarette use and PPD is not well understood. We sought to examine the association of e-cigarette use with PPD. Materials and Methods: Using Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System 2016-2019 data, unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses for PPD were conducted via three analyses where e-cigarette use (any vs. none) was retrospectively self-reported (1) in past 2-year, (2) prepregnancy (i.e., 3 months before pregnancy), and (3) during pregnancy (i.e., last 3 months of pregnancy). We conducted an additional past 2-year e-cigarette use analysis excluding those who used combustible cigarette and/or hookah. Covariates included age, race, ethnicity, combustible cigarette, and/or hookah use, prenatal care during the last trimester, health insurance coverage during pregnancy, physical abuse during pregnancy, income, and survey type. Results: Only unadjusted odds ratios from past 2-year e-cigarette use (1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42-1.87) and past 2-year e-cigarette use excluding individuals with cigarette and/or hookah use (1.78, 95% CI: 1.30-2.38) were statistically associated with PPD. No adjusted analyses were statistically significant. Conclusion: Any e-cigarette use, as compared to no use, does not appear to be an independent risk factor of PPD, though it may be a useful clinical marker of increased risk of PPD. Future studies are warranted to advance our knowledge of impact of e-cigarette use on PPD.

Understanding for whom, under what conditions and how smoking cessation services for pregnant women in the United Kingdom work-a rapid realist review

BACKGROUND

Maternal smoking in pregnancy is associated with several adverse maternal and infant health outcomes including increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, low birth weight, preterm birth, and asthma. Progress to reduce rates of smoking at time of delivery in England have been slow and over the last decade, less than half of pregnant women who accessed services went onto report having quit. This realist review was undertaken to improve the understanding of how smoking cessation services in pregnancy work and to understand the heterogeneity of outcomes observed.

METHODS

The initial programme theory was developed using the National Centre for Smoking Cession and Training Standard Treatment Programme for Pregnant Women and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on treating tobacco dependency. A search strategy and inclusion criteria were developed. Four databases were searched to identify published papers and four websites were hand searched to identify any unpublished literature that could contribute to theory building. Realist logic was applied to the analysis of papers to identify the contexts in which the intended behaviour change mechanism(s) were triggered, or not, and towards what outcomes to develop context mechanism outcome configurations.

RESULTS

The review included 33 papers. The analysis produced 19 context mechanism outcome configurations structured under five closely interconnected domains (i) articulating harm, (ii) promoting support, (iii) managing cravings, (iv) maintaining commitment and (v) building self-efficacy. This review identifies two key processes involved in how services achieve their effects: how material resources are implemented and relationships. Of the two key processes identified, more existing literature was available evidencing how material resources are implemented. However, the review provides some evidence that non-judgemental and supportive relationships with healthcare workers where regular contact is provided can play an important role in interrupting the social cues and social practice of smoking, even where those around women continue to smoke.

CONCLUSIONS

This review clarifies the range of interconnected and bi-directional relationships between services and the personal and social factors in women's lives. It underscores the importance of aligning efforts across the models five domains to strengthen services' ability to achieve smoking cessation.

Cigarette Smoking Abstinence Among Pregnant Individuals Using E-Cigarettes or Nicotine Replacement Therapy

Importance

Smoking cigarettes during pregnancy can impair maternal and child health, and pregnant individuals have increasingly used electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) for various reasons, including quitting smoking.

Objective

To assess smoking abstinence rates among pregnant individuals who used e-cigarettes compared with those who used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study is a secondary data analysis of phase 8 of the US Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, conducted between 2016 and 2020. Eligible participants included pregnant individuals who smoked combustible cigarettes within the 3 months before pregnancy and either used e-cigarettes or NRT during pregnancy. Data analysis was conducted from March 2022 to April 2023.

Exposures

Combustible cigarette use within 3 months before pregnancy and use of either e-cigarettes or NRT during pregnancy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the individual's self-reported smoking abstinence status during the last 3 months of pregnancy. Weighted percentages were reported and weighted multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association of e-cigarette use vs NRT with smoking abstinence. A propensity score was used to control for confounding by sociodemographics, pregnancy characteristics, prepregnancy smoking intensity, depression, behavioral support, and hookah use.

Results

The cohort included 1329 pregnant individuals (759 ≥25 years [60.2%]; 766 non-Hispanic White individuals [79.8%]) of whom 781 had an education level of high school or lower (61.4%), and 952 had an annual household income of $48 000 or less (81.5%). Of the 1329 individuals, 890 (unweighted percentage, 67.0%) were existing e-cigarette users, 67 (unweighted percentage, 5.0%) were new e-cigarette users, and 372 (unweighted percentage, 28.0%) were NRT users. Compared with individuals who used NRT during pregnancy, individuals who used e-cigarettes had a higher rate of smoking abstinence in late pregnancy (456 individuals [50.8%] vs 67 individuals [19.4%]; propensity score adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.47; 95% CI, 1.17-5.20; P = .02). In the secondary analysis stratified by the timing of e-cigarette use initiation, existing users of e-cigarettes who initiated before pregnancy had a higher smoking abstinence rate than NRT users (446 users [53.1%] vs 67 users [19.4%]; adjusted OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.23-5.51; P = .01). However, new e-cigarette users who initiated use during pregnancy had a similar smoking abstinence rate in late pregnancy when compared with NRT users (10 users [20.6%] vs 67 users [19.4%]; adjusted OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.22-5.87; P = .88).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that individuals who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy had a higher smoking abstinence rate in late pregnancy than individuals who used NRT, especially for those who initiated e-cigarette use before pregnancy, indicating that replacement of cigarettes with e-cigarettes during pregnancy may be a viable strategy for harm reduction.

Effect of unguided e-cigarette provision on uptake, use, and smoking cessation among adults who smoke in the USA: a naturalistic, randomised, controlled clinical trial

Background

As summarised in the most recent Cochrane review, the few clinical trials on e-cigarettes are largely focused on smoking cessation. We aimed to determine the naturalistic uptake, use, and impact of e-cigarettes among adults who may or may not want to stop smoking.

Methods

In this naturalistic, randomised, controlled clinical trial, adult smokers, across the motivational spectrum and with minimal history of e-cigarette use, were recruited online from the general community within 11 cities across the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to either receive either a free 4-week supply of flavoured, tank-style e-cigarette, or not. E-cigarette group participants received a battery and device with up to 30 pre-filled tanks, offered among five flavours, with minimal instructions on use. The study's primary purpose was to descriptively assess naturalistic uptake and usage of the e-cigarette, and to secondarily assess its impact on smoking behavior. The latter, assessed through six months of follow-up, included: a) self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence, b) incidence of quit attempts, and c) smoking reduction. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03453385.

Findings

Between 5/2018 and 3/2022, 638 adult smokers were enrolled and randomly assigned (427 in the e-cigarette group and 211 in the no-product control group). Uptake of e-cigarettes was robust: approximately 70% of participants used the product, with average usage exceeding 4 days per week during the initial 30 days. Based on an intent-to-treat approach where missing data is imputed as smoking, almost all behavioral outcomes favored the e-cigarette group relative to no-product control, including point prevalence abstinence at six months (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.8; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.0-3.1), cumulative incidence of 24-hr quit attempts (OR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.0-2.2), and having reduced smoking by at least 50% since baseline (OR = 1.8; 95% CI = 1.2-2.7). Results were similar under an alternative imputation.

Interpretation

Complementing cessation-focused trials, results suggest that unguided e-cigarette use also leads to smoking cessation, allaying the notion that causal effects of e-cigarettes on cessation are not reflective of real-world scenario of self-determined use. For smokers who may not be able to quit using existing pharmacologic approaches, e-cigarettes may be considered to achive that purpose.

Funding

National Cancer Institute.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for smoking cessation: Next steps for translation and implementation into clinical practice

Tobacco smoking is a significant determinant of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is now possible to modulate the activity of the neurocircuitry associated with nicotine dependence using repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive neurostimulation approach, which has recently demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials and received regulatory approval in the US and Canada. However there remains a paucity of replication studies and real-world patient effectiveness data as access to this intervention is extremely limited. There are a number of unique challenges related to the delivery of rTMS that need to be addressed prior to widespread adoption and implementation of this treatment modality for smoking cessation. In this paper, we review the accessibility, scientific, technological, economical, and social challenges that remain before this treatment can be translated into clinical practice. By addressing these remaining barriers and scientific challenges with rTMS for smoking cessation and delineating implementation strategies, we can greatly reduce the burden of tobacco-related disease worldwide.

Nicotine on the developing brain

Developmental periods such as gestation and adolescence have enhanced plasticity leaving the brain vulnerable to harmful effects from nicotine use. Proper brain maturation and circuit organization is critical for normal physiological and behavioral outcomes. Although cigarette smoking has declined in popularity, noncombustible nicotine products are readily used. The misperceived safety of these alternatives lead to widespread use among vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and adolescents. Nicotine exposure during these sensitive developmental windows is detrimental to cardiorespiratory function, learning and memory, executive function, and reward related circuitry. In this review, we will discuss clinical and preclinical evidence of the adverse alterations in the brain and behavior following nicotine exposure. Time-dependent nicotine-induced changes in reward related brain regions and drug reward behaviors will be discussed and highlight unique sensitivities within a developmental period. We will also review long lasting effects of developmental exposure persisting into adulthood, along with permanent epigenetic changes in the genome which can be passed to future generations. Taken together, it is critical to evaluate the consequences of nicotine exposure during these vulnerable developmental windows due to its direct impact on cognition, potential trajectories for other substance use, and implicated mechanisms for the neurobiology of substance use disorders.

Smoking cessation in pregnant women using financial incentives: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The high prevalence of smoking pregnant women in Dutch areas with lower socioeconomic status and the consecutively harmful exposure to tobacco to both mother and child, depicted a high need for a novel intervention. According to other studies, the utilisation of financial incentives appeared to be a promising method for smoking cessation in pregnant women. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of implementing contingent financial incentives as smoking cessation support for pregnant women in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Feasibility study consisting of four developmental phases: (1) acceptability of Dutch population regarding financial-incentive-intervention by conducting an online questionnaire, (2) composing a pilot study utilising the financial-incentive-intervention in clinical practice, (3) execution of the composed pilot study and (4) evaluation of the executed pilot study utilising a mixed-methods approach. A financial-incentive-intervention, given in a contingent financial scheme (during five consequential appointments, respectively €25/€50/€100/€150/€250), if smoking abstinence was proven by the amount of cotinine in the urine of the pregnant women measured utilising a urine dipstick test. The public acceptability for the financial-incentive-intervention was assessed using 5-Likert scales. The number of pregnant women able to abstain from smoking during the pilot study and utilising the financial-incentive-intervention in clinical practice were used to assess the prosperity and practicality of the pilot study respectively. The pilot study was evaluated using a mixed-methods approach.

RESULTS

In total, 55.1% of the Dutch population sample (n = 328) found a financial incentive inappropriate for smoking cessation in pregnant women, while the healthcare professionals and pilot study participants thought the financial-incentive-intervention to be a helpful approach. Eleven vouchers were given during the pilot study, and one woman completed all test points and tested negative for cotinine at the end of the pilot study.

CONCLUSION

Although the financial-incentive-intervention appeared to be a promising approach for smoking cessation in pregnant women, the acceptability of the Dutch population and the number of pregnant women able to abstain smoking during this pilot study was low. Despite the limited study population, this study proved the concept of this financial-incentive-intervention to be feasible for implementation in the Netherlands.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable since this is a feasibility study prior to a trial.

E-cigarette vapor exposure in utero causes long-term pulmonary effects in offspring

The in utero environment is sensitive to toxicant exposure, altering the health and growth of the fetus, and thus sensitive to contaminant exposure. Though recent clinical data suggest that e-cigarette use does no further harm to birth outcomes than a nicotine patch, this does not account for the effects of vaping during pregnancy on the long-term health of offspring. Pregnant mice were exposed to: 1) e-cigarette vapor with nicotine (PV + Nic; 2% Nic in 50:50 propylene glycol: vegetable glycerin), 2) e-cigarette vapor without nicotine [PV; (50:50 propylene glycol:vegetable glycerin)], or 3) HEPA filtered air (FA). Dams were removed from exposure upon giving birth. At 5 mo of age, pulmonary function tests on the offspring revealed female and male mice from the PV group had greater lung stiffness (Ers) and alveolar stiffness (H) compared with the FA group. Furthermore, baseline compliance (Crs) was reduced in female mice from the PV group and in male mice from the PV and PV + Nic groups. Lastly, female mice had decreased forced expiratory volume (FEV0.1) in the PV group, but not in the male groups, compared with the FA group. Lung histology revealed increased collagen deposition around the vessels/airways and in alveolar tissue in PV and PV + Nic groups. Furthermore, goblet hyperplasia was observed in PV male and PV/PV + Nic female mice. Our work shows that in utero exposure to e-cigarette vapor, regardless of nicotine presence, causes lung dysfunction and structural impairments that persist in the offspring to adulthood.

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.