The efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological monotherapies and e-cigarette on smoking cessation: a systemic review and network meta-analysis

Background and aims

Several pharmacological interventions, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion, have been approved for clinical use of smoking cessation. E-cigarettes (EC) are increasingly explored by many RCTs for their potentiality in smoking cessation. In addition, some RCTs are attempting to explore new drugs for smoking cessation, such as cytisine. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to investigate how these drugs and e-cigarettes compare regarding their efficacy and acceptability.

Materials and methods

This systematic review and NMA searched all clinical studies on smoking cessation using pharmacological monotherapies or e-cigarettes published from January 2011 to May 2022 using MEDLINE, COCHRANE Library, and PsychINFO databases. NRTs were divided into transdermal (TDN) and oronasal nicotine (ONN) by administrative routes, thus 7 network nodes were set up for direct and indirect comparison. Two different indicators measured the efficacy: prevalent and continuous smoking abstinence. The drop-out rates measured the acceptability.

Results

The final 40 clinical studies included in this study comprised 77 study cohorts and 25,889 participants. Varenicline is more effective intervention to assist in smoking cessation during 16-32 weeks follow-up, and is very likely to prompt dropout. Cytisine shows more effectiveness in continuous smoking cessation but may also lead to dropout. E-cigarettes and oronasal nicotine are more effective than no treatment in encouraging prevalent abstinence, but least likely to prompt dropout. Finally, transdermal nicotine delivery is more effective than no treatment in continuous abstinence, with neither significant effect on prevalent abstinence nor dropout rate.

Conclusion

This review suggested and agreed that Varenicline, Cytisine and transdermal nicotine delivery, as smoking cessation intervention, have advantages and disadvantages. However, we had to have reservations about e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking in adolescents.

Immediate smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening: long-term outcomes from two randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Immediate smoking cessation interventions delivered alongside targeted lung health checks (TLHCs) to screen for lung cancer increase self-reported abstinence at 3 months. The impact on longer term, objectively confirmed quit rates remains to be established.

METHODS

We followed up participants from two clinical trials in people aged 55-75 years who smoked and took part in a TLHC. These randomised participants in the TLHC by day of attendance to either usual care (UC) (signposting to smoking cessation services) or an offer of immediate smoking cessation support including pharmacotherapy. In the QuLIT1 trial, this was delivered face to face and in QuLIT2, it was delivered remotely. Follow-up was conducted 12 months after the TLHC by telephone interview with subsequent biochemical verification of smoking cessation using exhaled CO.

RESULTS

430 people were enrolled initially (115 in QuLIT1 and 315 in QuLIT2), with 4 deaths before 12 months leaving 426 (62.1±5.27 years old and 48% women) participants for analysis. At 12 months, those randomised to attend on smoking cessation support intervention days had higher quit rates compared with UC adjusted for age, gender, deprivation, and which trial they had been in; self-reported 7-day point prevalence (20.0% vs 12.8%; adjusted OR (AOR)=1.78; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.89) and CO-verified quits (12.1% vs 4.7%; AOR=2.97; 95% CI 1.38 to 6.90). Those in the intervention arm were also more likely to report having made a quit attempt (30.2% vs UC 18.5%; AOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.15).

CONCLUSION

Providing immediate smoking cessation support alongside TLHC increases long term, biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12455871.

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.

Clinical study protocol on electronic cigarettes and nicotine pouches for smoking cessation in Pakistan: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pakistan is one of most vulnerable low- and middle-income countries with 29 million adult active tobacco users. Smoking cessation services are lacking as the tobacco control initiatives have largely failed to address the smoking endemic. Over the last 5 years, Pakistan has witnessed the use of innovative tobacco harm reduction (THR) products such as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. However, their use remains limited. THR products are imported legally as consumer goods and are taxable. The lack of sufficient data for THR and its application is a challenge in gauging their effectiveness in assisting smokers quit combustible smoking. Evidence-based studies can help in measuring the effectiveness of e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches as smoking cessation aids.

METHOD

Keeping in view the study objectives, a sample size of 600 participants will be sufficient to assess the effectiveness of e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches for smoking cessation in Pakistan. Of these, 200 participants each will receive e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches along with basic care counselling, while the remaining 200 participants will only receive basic care counselling for 48 weeks. The association of participants' characteristics with smoking and health status will be based on the bivariate and multivariate analysis. The simple t-test and variance analysis will assess the differences in intervention indicators between the control and treatment groups. For the inferential analysis, the average treatment impact will be based on the quasi-experimental techniques such as difference in difference (DID) or propensity score matching (PMS).

DISCUSSION

The study will evaluate the participants at the baseline as they decide the quit date. After every 12 weeks, a follow-up survey with the participants will be conducted. Results are anticipated to inform the public, decision-makers, and researchers about the effects of using e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches in the short- and medium-term periods. Critically, the potential of e-cigarettes and other alternative nicotine delivery systems as smoking cessation aid will be assessed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05715164 . Registered on February 6, 2023.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Protocol version 1.0, 14-12-2022 Trial in progress and not yet recruiting participants. Estimated primary data collection date-April 2024.

Clinical impact of vaping on cardiopulmonary function and lung cancer development: an update

The word 'vaping' is used to define the usage of electronic cigarettes or other instruments to inhale a wide variety of heated and aerosolized substances. Although proposed as a less dangerous and oncogenic alternative than standard nicotine products, e-cigarettes and vaping devices are quite far from being considered benign. In fact, although vaping devices do not generate carcinogenic agents as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons produced by the combustion of standard cigarettes and their liquids do not present tobacco-related carcinogens like nitrosamines, there is nowadays clear evidence that they produce dangerous products during their use. Several different molecular mechanisms have been proposed for the oncogenic impact of vaping fluids - by means of their direct chemical action or derivative products generated by pyrolysis and combustion ranging from epithelial-mesenchymal transition, redox stress and mitochondrial toxicity to DNA breaks and fragmentation. In this review we focus on vaping devices, their potential impact on lung carcinogenesis, vaping-associated lung injury and other clinical implications on cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as on the psychological implication of e-cigarettes both on heavy smokers trying to quit smoking and on younger non-smokers approaching vaping devices because they are considered as a less dangerous alternative to tobacco cigarettes.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation on the high-risk population of lung cancer with early screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials until January 2022

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer has always been the malignant tumor with the highest incidence rate. Smoking is the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Although potential positive effects of smoking cessation interventions on the high-risk population of lung cancer have been observed, evidence of its definitive effect remains uncertain. This study aimed to summarize the evidence related to the effects and safety of smoking cessation interventions for the high-risk population of lung cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted through the following seven databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Direct. Screening and assessment for risk of bias were conducted by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed for the 7-day-point prevalence of smoking abstinence and continuous smoking abstinence using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis results show that in the 7-day-point prevalence of smoking abstinence (by patient-reported outcome): individualized intervention was significantly higher than that of the standard care [RR = 1.46, 95%CI = (1.04,2.06), P < 0.05]. Moreover, the smoking cessation interventions were significantly elevated than that of standard care [RR = 1.58, 95%CI = (1.12, 2.23), P < 0.05] within 1-6 month follow-up time. In line with the findings in cigarette smoking, the continuous smoking abstinence of E-cigarettes (biochemical verified): E-cigarettes were significantly higher than that of the standard care [RR = 1.51, 95%CI = (1.03, 2.21), P < 0.05], and within 1-6 month follow-up time, the smoking cessation interventions were significantly greater than that of standard care [RR = 1.51, 95%CI = (1.03, 2.21), P < 0.05]. Publication bias was detected possibly.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review show that smoking cessation intervention is effective for long-term lung cancer high-risk smokers who participate in early screening, of which E-cigarettes are the best, followed by individual smoking cessation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

A review protocol was developed and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42019147151. Registered 23 June 2022.

Immediate, Remote Smoking Cessation Intervention in Participants Undergoing a Targeted Lung Health Check: Quit Smoking Lung Health Intervention Trial, a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening programs provide an opportunity to support people who smoke to quit, but the most appropriate model for delivery remains to be determined. Immediate face-to-face smoking cessation support for people undergoing screening can increase quit rates, but it is not known whether remote delivery of immediate smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy in this context also is effective.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does an immediate telephone smoking cessation intervention increase quit rates compared with usual care among a population enrolled in a targeted lung health check (TLHC)?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In a single-masked randomized controlled trial, people 55 to 75 years of age who smoke and attended a TLHC were allocated by day of attendance to receive either immediate telephone smoking cessation intervention (TSI) support (starting immediately and lasting for 6 weeks) with appropriate pharmacotherapy or usual care (UC; very brief advice to quit and signposting to smoking cessation services). The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 3 months. Differences between groups were assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifteen people taking part in the screening program who reported current smoking with a mean ± SD age of 63 ± 5.4 years, 48% of whom were women, were randomized to TSI (n = 152) or UC (n = 163). The two groups were well matched at baseline. Self-reported quit rates were higher in the intervention arm, 21.1% vs 8.9% (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.44-5.61; P = .002). Controlling for participant demographics, neither baseline smoking characteristics nor the discovery of abnormalities on low-dose CT imaging modified the effect of the intervention.

INTERPRETATION

Immediate provision of an intensive telephone-based smoking cessation intervention including pharmacotherapy, delivered within a targeted lung screening context, is associated with increased smoking abstinence at 3 months.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ISRCTN registry; No.: ISRCTN12455871; URL: www.IRSCN.com.

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.

Nicotine-Free E-Cigarettes Might Promote Tobacco Smoking Reduction Better Than Nicotine Delivery Devices: Results of a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial at 1 Year

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the use of e-cigarettes to aid in quitting contributed to the increase in the pulmonary health of chronic smokers. The efficacy of e-cigarettes to support a successful smoking cessation attempt was also investigated. A total of 210 smokers (78 women) were enrolled in a screening program for the early detection of lung cancer and distributed in three arms: nicotine e-cigarette plus support, nicotine-free e-cigarette plus support, and support. Results showed that participants in the nicotine e-cigarette arm had a significant and fast decrease in daily cigarettes, but that later they resume smoking more than the other two groups. Conversely, participants in the other two arms showed similar daily consumption at the two evaluation points. Among abstinent participants, only 12.5% reported cough, while 48% of current smokers had pulmonary symptoms. Our study suggests that, in the long run, the use of a nicotine-free liquid may favor reducing smoking and could be considered a good option in a clinical setting.

Investigating the effect of e-cigarette use on quitting smoking in adults aged 25 years or more using the PATH study

Background: The evidence on harms and benefits of e-cigarettes partly concerns whether their use encourages smokers to quit.  We addressed this using data from the nationally representative PATH study, with detailed accounting for potential confounding variables.

Methods: We considered adults aged 25+.  Our original analyses, reported in version 1 of this paper, used data for Waves 1 to 3, separate analyses considering Waves 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and 1 to 3.  These related baseline ever e-cigarette use (or e-product use at Wave 2) to quitting at follow-up, adjusting for confounders derived from 55 candidates.  Sensitivity analyses omitted ever other product users, linked quitting to current e-cigarette use, and used values of some predictors modified using follow-up data.  Additional analyses used data for Waves 1 to 4, separately considering sustained, delayed and temporary quitting during Waves 1 to 3, 2 to 4 and 1 to 4.  Sensitivity analyses considered 30-day quitting, restricted attention to smokers attempting to quit, and considered ever smokeless tobacco or snus use.

Results: In the original analyses, unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) of quitting smoking for ever e-cigarette use were 1.29 (95% CI 1.01-1.66), 1.52 (1.26-1.83) and 1.47 (1.19-1.82) for the Wave 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and 1 to 3 analyses.  These reduced after adjustment, to 1.23 (0.94-1.61), 1.51 (1.24-1.85) and 1.39 (1.11-1.74).  Quitting rates remained elevated in users in all sensitivity analyses.  The additional analyses found associations of e-cigarette use with sustained, delayed and temporary quitting, associations little affected by considering 30-day quitting, and only slightly reduced restricting attention to quit attempters.  Ever use of smokeless tobacco or snus also predicted increased quitting.  

Conclusions: As does most evidence from clinical trials, other analyses of PATH, and other epidemiological studies, our results suggest using e-cigarettes helps adult smokers to quit.

The Effectiveness of E-Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation

BACKGROUND

Our primary aim was to assess-in the German population-the effectiveness of e-cigarettes (ECs; with or without nicotine), nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and no use of evidence-based aids in smoking cessation.

METHODS

Analysis of cross-sectional data from a representative survey of the population (age 14-96 years) conducted in 2016-2021. All current smokers and recent ex-smokers (< 12 months since quitting) who had made ≥ 1 attempt to quit in the past 12 months (n = 2740) were included. They were asked about use of cessation aids in their most recent quit attempt and their current smoking status.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-nine respondents had used ECs, 168 NRT, and 2333 no aid. After adjustment for potential confounders, the odds of abstinence were 1.78 times higher for smokers who had used ECs in their quit attempt than in the group that had used no aids (95% confidence interval [1.09; 2.92]; p = 0.02) and 1.46 times higher than in the NRT group ([0.68; 3.13]; p = 0.34, Bayes factor = 1.26). Compared with the unaided group, the odds of abstinence were 2.34 times higher ([1.21; 4.53]; p = 0.01) in the subgroup using ECs with nicotine and 1.48 times higher ([0.68; 3.26]; p = 0.33) in the subgroup using ECs without nicotine. The unadjusted abstinence rates in people who had started their quit attempt > 6 months earlier were 15.6% [9.4; 23.8] in the ECs group and 13.8% [7.3; 22.9] in the NRT group.

CONCLUSION

In Germany, use of ECs in an attempt to quit smoking is associated with a higher rate of abstinence than attempting to quit unaided.

Immediate smoking cessation support versus usual care in smokers attending a targeted lung health check: the QuLIT trial

Objectives

Lung cancer screening programmes offer an opportunity to address tobacco dependence in current smokers. The effectiveness of different approaches to smoking cessation in this context has not yet been established. We investigated if immediate smoking cessation support, including pharmacotherapy, offered as part of a lung cancer screening programme, increases quit rates compared to usual care (Very Brief Advice to quit and signposting to smoking cessation services).

Materials and methods

We conducted a single-blind randomised controlled trial of current smokers aged 55–75 years attending a Targeted Lung Health Check. On randomly allocated days smokers received either (1) immediate support from a trained smoking cessation counsellor with appropriate pharmacotherapy or (2) usual care. The primary outcome was self-reported quit rate at 3 months. We performed thematic analysis of participant interview responses.

Results

Of 412 people attending between January and March 2020, 115 (27.9%) were current smokers; 46% female, mean (SD) 62.4 (5.3) years. Follow-up data were available for 84 smokers. At 3 months, quit rates in the intervention group were higher 14/48 (29.2%) vs 4/36 (11%) (χ² 3.98, p=0.04). Participant interviews revealed four smoking-cessation related themes: (1) stress and anxiety, (2) impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, (3) CT scans influencing desire to quit and (4) individual beliefs about stopping smoking.

Conclusion

The provision of immediate smoking cessation support is associated with a substantial increase in quit rates at 3 months. Further research is needed to investigate longer-term outcomes and to refine future service delivery.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN12455871.

Examining Cannabis, Tobacco, and Vaping Discourse on Reddit: An Exploratory Approach Using Natural Language Processing

Background: Perceptions of tobacco, cannabis, and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are continually evolving in the United States. Exploring these characteristics through user generated text sources may provide novel insights into product use behavior that are challenging to identify using survey-based methods. The objective of this study was to compare the topics frequently discussed among Reddit members in cannabis, tobacco, and ENDS-specific subreddits. Methods: We collected 643,070 posts on the social media site Reddit between January 2013 and December 2018. We developed and validated an annotation scheme, achieving a high level of agreement among annotators. We then manually coded a subset of 2,630 posts for their content with relation to experiences and use of the three products of interest, and further developed word cloud representations of the words contained in these posts. Finally, we applied Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling to the 643,070 posts to identify emerging themes related to cannabis, tobacco, and ENDS products being discussed on Reddit. Results: Our manual annotation process yielded 2,148 (81.6%) posts that contained a mention(s) of either cannabis, tobacco, or ENDS with 1,537 (71.5%) of these posts mentioning cannabis, 421 (19.5%) mentioning ENDS, and 264 (12.2%) mentioning tobacco. In cannabis-specific subreddits, personal experiences with cannabis, cannabis legislation, health effects of cannabis use, methods and forms of cannabis, and the cultivation of cannabis were commonly discussed topics. The discussion in tobacco-specific subreddits often focused on the discussion of brands and types of combustible tobacco, as well as smoking cessation experiences and advice. In ENDS-specific subreddits, topics often included ENDS accessories and parts, flavors and nicotine solutions, procurement of ENDS, and the use of ENDS for smoking cessation. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the posting and participation patterns of Reddit members in cannabis, tobacco, and ENDS-specific subreddits and provide novel insights into aspects of personal use regarding these products. These findings complement epidemiologic study designs and highlight the potential of using specific subreddits to explore personal experiences with cannabis, ENDS, and tobacco products.

Efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, ENDS) in helping people who smoke to achieve abstinence compared with electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS, no nicotine) or any smoking cessation comparator treatment or combination of treatments at 24–26 weeks and at 52 weeks.

METHODS

Systematic review techniques involved searches of three databases in February 2020 with update searches run on 14 May 2021, two-person independent screening, two-person independent assessment of bias, formal extraction of data with verification by a second person, a feasibility assessment to decide if meta-analysis was appropriate, and network meta-analysis (NMA) of data at 24–26 weeks. Data at 52 weeks were narratively summarized.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs met the inclusion criteria, eight for efficacy and ten for safety. Eight of the nine RCTs were assessed as at high risk of bias. The sample sizes of the RCTs were 30–2012. Using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as the reference treatment, the incidences of smoking cessation at 24–26 weeks were comparable between ENDS and NRT groups (RR=1.17; 95% CrI: 0.66–1.86). Three sensitivity analyses were carried out indicating the main findings for 24–26 weeks were robust to assumptions. The findings at 52 weeks were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and NMA indicates that there is no clear evidence of a difference in effect between nicotine containing e-cigarettes and NRT on incidences of smoking cessation at 24–26 weeks, and substantial uncertainty remains.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Electronic cigarette use and smoking cessation in cohort studies and randomized trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the association between e-cigarette use and subsequent smoking cessation in cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was finalized 11 November 2019 using EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed Health, NICE evidence search, PROSPERO, CRD, PsycInfo, and PubMed including Medline. Inclusion criteria were: reporting empirical results; longitudinal observational design with a minimum of 3 months of follow-up; including general population samples; and allowing for comparison between users and non-users of e-cigarettes. Studies rated as having high risk of bias were excluded. The procedures described by PRISMA were followed, and the quality of evidence was rated using GRADE.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight longitudinal, peer-reviewed publications from 26 cohort studies, and eight publications from seven RCTs assessing the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation were included in this review. A random-effects meta-analysis based on 39147 participants in cohort studies showed a pooled unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for smoking cessation among baseline e-cigarette users compared with baseline non-users of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.67-1.40), while the adjusted OR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.63-1.27). The pooled odds ratio for smoking cessation in RCTs was 1.78 (95% CI: 1.41-2.25). The evidence for cohort studies was graded as very low and for RCTs as low.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find quality evidence for an association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation. Although RCTs tended to support a more positive association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation than the cohort studies, the grading of evidence was consistently low.

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.

Harms of Electronic Cigarettes: What the Healthcare Provider Needs to Know

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) reached the market without either extensive preclinical toxicology testing or long-term safety trials that would be required of conventional therapeutics or medical devices. E-cigarettes are considered a tobacco product and as such have no manufacturing quality or safety standards. A growing body of evidence documents severe harms from e-cigarette use, including injuries from product explosions, nicotine poisoning, and severe lung diseases. Commonly used e-cigarette components have significant inhalation toxicity. Emerging evidence from laboratory studies suggests substantial reason for concern for long-term harms, including risk for cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, and cancer. Rather than helping people stop smoking, e-cigarette use is associated with reduced rates of smoking cessation among current smokers and an increased risk of relapse to smoking among former smokers. The World Health Organization advises, "Unlike the tried and tested nicotine and non-nicotine pharmacotherapies that are known to help people quit tobacco use, WHO does not endorse e-cigarettes as cessation aids." Careful evaluation of all the available research justifies a strong recommendation that healthcare providers should neither prescribe nor recommend e-cigarettes for persons who are tobacco dependent. If a patient is dependent on e-cigarettes, the healthcare provider should provide counseling and treatment (of nicotine dependence) to help the patient to stop their e-cigarette use.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and network meta-analysis of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation

AIM

E-cigarettes, or nicotine vaping products, are potential smoking cessation aids that provide both nicotine and behavioural substitution for combustible cigarette smoking. This review aims to compare the effectiveness of nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation with licensed nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) and nicotine-free based control conditions by using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science and PsycINFO for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that allocated individuals to use nicotine e-cigarettes, compared to those that used licensed NRT (e.g., nicotine patches, nicotine gums, etc), or a nicotine-free control condition such as receiving placebo (nicotine-free) e-cigarettes or usual care. We only included studies of healthy individuals who smoked. Furthermore, we identified the latest Cochrane review on NRT and searched NRT trials that were published in similar periods as the e-cigarette trials we identified. NMA was conducted to compare the effect of e-cigarettes on cessation relative to NRT and control condition. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials Version 2 was used to access study bias.

RESULTS

For the e-cigarette trials, our initial search identified 4,717 studies and we included 7 trials for NMA after removal of duplicates, record screening and assessment of eligibility (Total N = 5,674). For NRT trials, our initial search identified 1,014 studies and we included 9 trials that satisfied our inclusion criteria (Total N = 6,080). Results from NMA indicated that participants assigned to use nicotine e-cigarettes were more likely to remain abstinent from smoking than those in the control condition (pooled Risk Ratio (RR) = 2.08, 97.5% CI = [1.39, 3.15]) and those who were assigned to use NRT (pooled RR = 1.49, 97.5% CI = [1.04, 2.14]. There was a moderate heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 42%). Most of the e-cigarette trials has moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Smokers assigned to use nicotine e-cigarettes were more likely to remain abstinent from smoking than those assigned to use licensed NRT, and both were more effective than usual care or placebo conditions. More high quality studies are required to ascertain the effect of e-cigarette on smoking cessation due to risk of bias in the included studies.

Effectiveness of Electronic Cigarettes in Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Reports of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes (ECs) for smoking cessation vary across different studies making implementation recommendations hard to attain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the current evidence regarding effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation.

METHODS

PubMed, PsycInfo, and Embase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing nicotine ECs with non-nicotine ECs or with established smoking cessation interventions (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] and or counseling) published between 1 January 2014 and 27 June 2020. Data from eligible studies were extracted and used for random-effects meta-analyses (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019141414).

RESULTS

The search yielded 13 950 publications with 12 studies being identified as eligible for systematic review (N = 8362) and 9 studies for random-effects meta-analyses (range: 30-6006 participants). The proportion of smokers achieving abstinence was 1.71 (95 CI: 1.02-2.84) times higher in nicotine EC users compared with non-nicotine EC users. The proportion of abstinent smokers was 1.69 (95 CI: 1.25-2.27) times higher in EC users compared with participants receiving NRT. EC users showed a 2.04 (95 CI: 0.90-4.64) times higher proportion of abstinent smokers in comparison with participants solely receiving counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that nicotine ECs may be more effective in smoking cessation when compared with placebo ECs or NRT. When compared with counseling alone, nicotine ECs are more effective short term, but its effectiveness appears to diminish with later follow-ups. Given the small number of studies, heterogeneous design, and the overall moderate to low quality of evidence, it is not possible to offer clear recommendations.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study do not allow for a conclusive argument. However, pooling current evidence points toward a potential for ECs as a smoking cessation tool. Though, given the overall quality of evidence, future studies should aim for more clarity in terms of interventions and larger study populations.

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.

Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery system with 0, 8, or 36 mg/mL liquid nicotine versus a cigarette substitute on tobacco-related toxicant exposure: a four-arm, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDSs) are used by some smokers to reduce cigarette consumption, but their effectiveness is uncertain. We aimed to examine the extent to which ENDSs or a non-nicotine cigarette substitute influence tobacco-related toxicant exposure and cigarette consumption in smokers interested in smoking reduction.

METHODS

We did a four-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at two sites in the USA (Penn State University, Hershey, PA, and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA). We enrolled adults aged 21-65 years who smoked more than nine cigarettes per day (for at least the past year), with exhaled CO of more than 9 parts per million at screening, who were not currently using an ENDS, and who were interested in reducing smoking but not quitting. Participants were randomised (site-specific with allocation concealment; 1:1:1:1) to receive either a cartomiser-based, pen-style ENDS (eGo-style) paired with 0, 8, or 36 mg/mL liquid nicotine (participants and researchers masked to concentration) or a non-ENDS cigarette-shaped plastic tube that delivered no nicotine or aerosol (cigarette substitute; unmasked) for 24 weeks. Conditions were chosen to reflect a range of nicotine delivery including none (cigarette substitute and 0 mg/mL ENDS), low (8 mg/mL), and cigarette-like (36 mg/mL), and all conditions were paired with smoking reduction instructions. The primary outcome was concentration of the tobacco-specific carcinogen metabolite 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL; urinary total) collected at randomisation and at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Multiple imputation with and without covariate adjustment was used in addition to sensitivity analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02342795.

FINDINGS

Between July 22, 2015, and Nov 16, 2017, 684 individuals were screened and 520 (76%) were enrolled and randomised. 188 (36%) of 520 participants were lost to follow-up by week 24; attrition did not differ by study group (39 [30%] of 130 in the cigarette substitute group, 56 [43%] of 130 in the ENDS with 0 mg/mL nicotine group, 49 [38%] of 130 in the ENDS 8 mg/mL group, and 44 [34%] of 130 in the ENDS 36 mg/mL group). Urinary total NNAL at 24 weeks in the ENDS with 36 mg/mL nicotine group was 210·80 pg/mg creatinine (95% CI 163·03-274·42) compared with 346·09 pg/mg creatinine (265·00-455·32) in the cigarette substitute group (p=0·0061). No other significant differences between groups were observed for any time point for urinary total NNAL. Serious adverse event frequency was similar across groups (12 events in 12 participants [9%] in the ENDS with 36 mg/mL nicotine group, seven events in six participants [5%] in the 8 mg/mL group, 11 events in ten participants [8%] in the 0 mg/mL group, and 13 events in 13 participants [10%] in the cigarette substitute group), and all of these were deemed unrelated or unlikely to be related to study product use. There was one death between randomisation and 24 weeks (suicide; in the ENDS with 0 mg/mL nicotine group).

INTERPRETATION

Use of an ENDS with cigarette-like nicotine delivery can reduce exposure to a major pulmonary carcinogen, NNAL, even with concurrent smoking. Future ENDS trials should involve products with well characterised nicotine delivery, including those with nicotine delivery approaching that of a cigarette.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health, US Food and Drug Administration.

Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

It has been estimated that in 2018 nearly 20% of adults in the US were currently using a tobacco product.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, and electronic cigarettes for tobacco cessation among adults, including pregnant persons, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, PsycInfo, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of Health Technology Assessment; surveillance through September 25, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Systematic reviews of tobacco cessation interventions and randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or pharmacotherapy among pregnant persons.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; qualitative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health outcomes, tobacco cessation at 6 months or more, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven reviews addressing pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions were included as well as 9 trials (N = 3942) addressing e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and 7 trials (N = 2285) of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use in pregnancy. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions (pooled risk ratio [RR], 1.83 [95% CI, 1.68-1.98]), NRT (RR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.49-1.61]), bupropion (RR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.52-1.77]), varenicline (RR, 2.24 [95% CI, 2.06-2.43]), and behavioral interventions such as advice from clinicians (RR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.58-1.96]) were all associated with increased quit rates compared with minimal support or placebo at 6 months or longer. None of the drugs were associated with serious adverse events. Five trials (n = 3117) reported inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes on smoking cessation at 6 to 12 months among smokers when compared with placebo or NRT, and none suggested higher rates of serious adverse events. Among pregnant persons, behavioral interventions were associated with greater smoking cessation during late pregnancy (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.23-1.48]), compared with no intervention. Rates of validated cessation among pregnant women allocated to NRT compared with placebo were not significantly different (pooled RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.79-1.56], n = 2033).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There is strong evidence that a range of pharmacologic and behavioral interventions, both individually and in combination, are effective in increasing smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults. In pregnancy, behavioral interventions are effective for smoking cessation, but data are limited on the use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Data on the effectiveness and safety of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation among adults are also limited and results are inconsistent.

Effect of e-Cigarettes Plus Counseling vs Counseling Alone on Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) for smoking cessation remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate e-cigarettes with individual counseling for smoking cessation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized clinical trial enrolled adults motivated to quit smoking from November 2016 to September 2019 at 17 Canadian sites (801 individuals screened; 274 ineligible and 151 declined). Manufacturing delays resulted in early termination (376/486 participants, 77% of target). Outcomes through 24 weeks (March 2020) are reported.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomization to nicotine e-cigarettes (n = 128), nonnicotine e-cigarettes (n = 127), or no e-cigarettes (n = 121) for 12 weeks. All groups received individual counseling.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was point prevalence abstinence (7-day recall, biochemically validated using expired carbon monoxide) at 12 weeks, changed from 52 weeks following early termination. Participants missing data were assumed to be smoking. The 7 secondary end points, examined at multiple follow-ups, were point prevalence abstinence at other follow-ups, continuous abstinence, daily cigarette consumption change, serious adverse events, adverse events, dropouts due to adverse effects, and treatment adherence.

RESULTS

Among 376 randomized participants (mean age, 52 years; 178 women [47%]), 299 (80%) and 278 (74%) self-reported smoking status at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively. Point prevalence abstinence was significantly greater for nicotine e-cigarettes plus counseling vs counseling alone at 12 weeks (21.9% vs 9.1%; risk difference [RD], 12.8 [95% CI, 4.0 to 21.6]) but not 24 weeks (17.2% vs 9.9%; RD, 7.3 [95% CI, -1.2 to 15.7]). Point prevalence abstinence for nonnicotine e-cigarettes plus counseling was not significantly different from counseling alone at 12 weeks (17.3% vs 9.1%; RD, 8.2 [95% CI, -0.1 to 16.6]), but was significantly greater at 24 weeks (20.5% vs 9.9%; RD, 10.6 [95% CI, 1.8 to 19.4]). Adverse events were common (nicotine e-cigarette with counseling: 120 [94%]; nonnicotine e-cigarette with counseling: 118 [93%]; counseling only: 88 [73%]), with the most common being cough (64%) and dry mouth (53%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults motivated to quit smoking, nicotine e-cigarettes plus counseling vs counseling alone significantly increased point prevalence abstinence at 12 weeks. However, the difference was no longer significant at 24 weeks, and trial interpretation is limited by early termination and inconsistent findings for nicotine and nonnicotine e-cigarettes, suggesting further research is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02417467.

Short Bouts of Physical Activity Are Associated with Reduced Smoking Withdrawal Symptoms, but Perceptions of Intensity May Be the Key

The primary aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a short bout (10 min) of moderate-intensity exercise to reduce withdrawal symptomatology, craving and negative affect; while the secondary aim was to assess how the effectiveness of a short bout of moderate exercise can be modulated by the perception of intensity in physically active and low-activity smokers. Fifty low-activity and physically active smokers were recruited (24 male and 26 female) and randomized in three different conditions. Prescribed (objective) moderate intensity (OBJ) and perceived moderate intensity (PER), and passive waiting (PW). After the intervention (T3), smokers reported less desire to smoke in the PER (p < 0.001) and OBJ (p < 0.001) conditions, relative to the PW condition. At T3 smokers in the PER condition reported less negative affect than smokers in the PW condition relative to the baseline (T1) (p < 0.007). Further, smokers in the PER condition reported less negative affect than smokers in the PW condition (p < 0.048). Physically active (PA) smokers perceived less exertion than low-activity (LA) smokers, and the effects were stronger in the PER condition relative to OBJ. Generally, our results suggest that a short bout of moderate exercise helps both LA and PA smokers. These findings provided a novel insight into the psychological mechanisms that affect the efficacy of the exercise in smoking cessation and suggest that exercise should be tailored according to individual perception of intensity.

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.

History repeats itself: Role of characterizing flavors on nicotine use and abuse

The popularity of e-cigarettes has skyrocketed in recent years, and most vapers use flavored e-cigarette products. Consumption of flavored e-cigarettes exceeds that of combustible cigarettes and other tobacco products among adolescents, who are particularly vulnerable to becoming nicotine dependent. Flavorings have been used by the tobacco industry since the 17th century, but the use of flavors by the e-cigarette industry to create products with "characterizing" flavors (i.e. flavors other than tobacco or menthol) has sparked a public health debate. This review addresses the possibility that characterizing flavors make nicotine more appealing, rewarding and addictive. It also discusses ways in which preclinical and clinical studies could improve our understanding of the mechanisms by which flavors may alter nicotine reward and reinforcement. This article is part of the special issue on 'Contemporary Advances in Nicotine Neuropharmacology'.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Efficacy of E-Cigarette Use for Smoking Cessation in the General Population: E3 Trial Design

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation improves morbidity and mortality among smokers who achieve long-term abstinence. Many smokers are using electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to attempt to quit, despite a lack of data concerning their efficacy and safety for smoking cessation.

METHODS

The Evaluating the Efficacy of E-Cigarette use for Smoking Cessation (E3) trial is a multicentre randomized controlled trial (NCT02417467) with a treatment period of 12 weeks and follow-up of 52 weeks. A total of 376 participants motivated to quit smoking were enrolled at 17 Canadian centres (November 2016 to September 2019). Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 treatment arms: nicotine e-cigarettes, non-nicotine e-cigarettes, or no e-cigarettes. All groups received individual counselling. Treatment allocation was double-blind for the e-cigarette groups. The trial includes follow-ups by telephone at weeks 1, 2, 8, and 18, and clinic visits at weeks 4, 12, 24, and 52. The primary endpoint is to compare nicotine e-cigarettes to counselling alone in terms of biochemically validated point-prevalence smoking abstinence at 12 weeks; the primary endpoint was changed from 52 weeks after early termination (77% of targeted enrollment) due to a prolonged delay in e-cigarette manufacturing. The secondary objectives are to examine the efficacy of nicotine and non-nicotine e-cigarettes in terms of point-prevalence and continuous smoking abstinence, and reduction in daily cigarette consumption at all follow-ups through week 52, and to describe the occurrence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The E3 trial will provide regulators, health care professionals, and smokers with important information about the efficacy and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

The psychometric properties of the Italian adaptation of the Health Orientation Scale (HOS)

Background

A novel approach suggested that cognitive and dispositional features may explain in depth the health behaviors adoption and the adherence to prevention programs. The Health Orientation Scale (HOS) has been extensively used to map the adoption of health and unhealthy behaviors according to cognitive and dispositional features. Coherently, the main aim of the current research was to assess the factor structure of the Italian version of the HOS using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and testing the construct validity of the scale by assessing differences in health orientations between tobacco cigarette smokers and nonsmokers.

Method

The research protocol was organized in two studies. Study 1 evaluated the dimensionality of the HOS in a sample of Northern Italian healthy people. Three hundred and twenty-one participants were enrolled; they were 229 women (71.3%) and 92 men (28.7%). In Study 2, the factor structure and construct validity of the HOS Italian version was assessed trough confirmatory factor analysis using a tobacco cigarette smokers and nonsmokers population. Two hundred and nineteen participants were enrolled; they were 164 women (75.2%) and 55 men (24.8%).

Results

In Study 1, a seven factors solution was obtained explaining 60% of cumulative variance instead of 10 factors solution of the original version of the HOS. In Study 2, the factor structure of the Italian version of the HOS was confirmed and applied to the smokers and nonsmokers; nonsmokers reported higher values than smokers in Factor 1 (MHPP) [t (208) = − 2.739 p < .007] (CI 95–4.96% to −.809), Factor 2 (HES) [t (209) = − 3.387 p < .001] (CI 95–3.93% to -. 1.03), Factor 3 (HIC) [t(213) = − 2.468 p < .014] (CI 95–2.56% to −.28) and Factor 7 (HEX) [t(217) = − 3.451 p < .001] (CI 95%- 1.45 to .39).

Conclusions

Results of the Italian adaptation of HOS lead to a partial redistribution of items and confirmed 7 subscales to distinguish psycho-cognitive dispositional dimensions involved in health orientation styles.

Increasing Smoking Cessation Adherence: Do We Need to Consider the Role of Executive Function and Rumination?

Despite the cost and health consequences, a large number of people continue to smoke cigarettes worldwide every day. Notwithstanding, there have been a number of interventions to help people stop smoking but, in general, these have produced only limited success, and better interventions are needed. Accruing evidence affirmed that rumination and executive function play a pivotal role in cigarette smoking behavior, and in this editorial, we describe and discuss the key findings between these constructs and smoking, and argue that an impairment in executive functions does not act alone, but interacts with rumination by directing attention to depressive thoughts, thereby reducing the ability of smokers to engage in constructive behaviors, such as quitting smoking. Finally, we offer a new theory-driven model based on a deep understanding of the interactions between executive functions and rumination and potential moderator effects.

A pilot study to examine the acceptability and health effects of electronic cigarettes in HIV-positive smokers

INTRODUCTION

Some HIV-positive smokers report ambivalence about quitting. Switching to electronic cigarettes (ECs) may be a viable option to reduce the negative health effects for smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit smoking combustible cigarettes (CCs). This study examined the acceptability and health-related effects of ECs in HIV-positive smokers who were not seeking smoking cessation treatment.

METHODS

HIV-positive smokers (N = 19) were enrolled and followed for 12 weeks. Cartridge-based ECs were provided at baseline, and E-liquid was provided weekly for 8 weeks. At baseline, weeks 1-8, and week 12, EC and CC use, cardiopulmonary function, respiratory symptoms, and carbon monoxide (CO) levels were measured.

RESULTS

At week 8, cigarettes per day (CPD) were reduced by more than 80%, with reduction maintained at week 12 (p's < .001). Cigarette dependence scores were 40% lower at week 8 than at baseline (p <  .001). Seven (36.8%) participants reported transitioning completely from CCs to ECs. Mean CO decreased significantly from BL to week 8 (p < .05) and remained significantly lower at week 12 (p <  .001). Intention to quit increased significantly over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from CCs to ECs in HIV-positive smokers who are not ready to quit smoking in the next 30 days appears to be feasible. Beneficial effects were seen, such as reduced CPD, reduced CO and CC dependence, and increased motivation to quit. ECs may be promising as a harm reduction approach among HIV-positive smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit smoking.

Electronic cigarettes: Ever use, current use and attitudes among alcohol and other drug clients

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are becoming popular and may be a potential harm reduction and quit smoking aid for people who use other drugs. Data on e-cigarette use and perceptions among people who use drugs is limited. The current study examines tobacco smoking status, use and attitudes towards e-cigarettes among people in drug and alcohol treatment.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were collected through a standardised Patient Experience Tracking System device installed in the waiting room of six drug and alcohol clinical service programs located within one area health service in New South Wales, Australia during April to June 2017. Participants were clients of participating services aged 18 years and older.

RESULTS

Five hundred and eleven participants completed the survey, 85% were current smokers, 9% were ex-smokers and 6% were non-smokers. Over half of all participants (53%) had tried e-cigarettes in their lifetime, 26% reported current use and 77% of those were using them with nicotine. Just less than half of all participants believed that e-cigarettes were helpful for quitting or cutting down smoking tobacco cigarettes (48%). More than half of all respondents (59%) believed that tobacco cigarettes were more harmful than e-cigarettes (59%) and believed that e-cigarettes were an acceptable quit smoking aid for patients of drug and alcohol services (64%).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Most participants were current tobacco smokers and had tried an e-cigarette though a minority were currently using e-cigarettes. Participant attitudes were favourable towards the use of e-cigarettes as quit smoking aids.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems and pregnancy: Recent research on perceptions, cessation, and toxicant delivery

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), which includes e-cigarettes (ECIGs), are a rapidly-expanding class of products that heat a liquid (which may or may not contain nicotine) to produce an aerosol. The variation of ECIG components is extensive as are their effects on users. Epidemiological data show that while both adults and youth use ECIGs, use among youth has increased dramatically in recent years. Other epidemiological data show that women of reproductive age and some pregnant women are also using ECIGs. The goal of this article is to provide readers with background information about ECIGs, with a focus on recent findings about ECIG use in pregnancy and potential implications. Among pregnant women, correlates of ECIG use include current cigarette smoking, among other factors. Regarding pregnant women's perceptions of ECIG use in pregnancy, two themes emerge from the literature: many pregnant women perceive ECIGs to be safer than conventional cigarettes, and that ECIGs can aid with smoking cessation. In contrast to these perceptions, there is little concrete evidence that ECIGs help smokers quit. In addition, there are concerns about ECIG nicotine and other toxicant delivery. Nicotine is a toxicant of particular concern for pregnant women, as nicotine is known to harm a developing fetus. There are many limitations to existing research, and the literature is scant in this area. Further, new "pod mod"-style ECIGs such as JUUL present new challenges. Overall, with limited evidence of their effectiveness, and concerns about developmental toxicology, the authors do not recommend that pregnant women use ECIGs.

Dimensionality and Measurement Invariance of the Italian Version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in Postoperative Lung Cancer Patients

Background

This study aims to validate and evaluate the psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the Italian version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), which is a measure of quality of life (QoL) for lung cancer patients after surgery.

Methods

A total of 167 lung cancer patients completed the Italian version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire at 30 days after they received a lobectomy. The factor structure of this scale was assessed by performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Measurement invariance was evaluated by considering differential item functioning (DIF) due to age, gender, and type of surgery (i.e., robot- or not robot-assisted).

Results

The CFA demonstrated the validity of the factor structure of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in assessing overall health and eight distinct subscales of adverse events and functioning. Moreover, the results highlighted a minimal DIF with only trivial consequences on measurement invariance. Specifically, the DIF did not affect the mean differences of latent scores of QoL between patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery or traditional surgery.

Conclusion

These findings supported the validity and suitability of the EORTC QLQ-C30 for the assessment of QoL in lung cancer patients of diverse ages and genders undergoing lobectomy with or without robot-assisted surgery.

The Attentional Bias in Current and Former Smokers

Attentional bias has been defined as the propensity of a person to allocate selective attention automatically to salient cues (Field and Powell, 2007). In the case of smoking, this bias implies that smokers are implicitly attracted by smoking-related stimuli, which produce behavioral, memory, and emotional effects (Volkow et al., 2006; Giardini et al., 2009). In more detail, scientific evidence pointed out that smoking is strongly supported by attentional bias that activates craving and urgency to smoke a cigarette. However, poor and conflicting data are available regarding the role of this cognitive bias on former smokers. The main aim of this study is to explore the occurrence of the attentional bias on of both current and former smokers, also with the aim to identify associations with behavioral, psychological and cognitive characteristic of participants. We collected data on 245 current, volunteers (male 50.6%; female 49.4%) aged 54.81 (SD = 14.352, range = 18–63), divided in current smokers (98), former smokers (102) and non-smokers (45). A combination of neuropsychology tests (Emotional Smoke Stroop Task and Go/no-Go task), and standardized questionnaires [Behavioral Inhibition System-Behavioral Approach System (BIS-BAS), Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND), Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Motivational questionnaire] were used to assess the attentional bias, psychological variables, and smoking-related characteristics. Responses at the Emotional Smoke Stroop task revealed that current and former smokers are actually slower than non-smokers are when facing smoking cues, while performances at other Stroop conditions and at the Go/no-Go task are not statistically different. These results confirmed the occurrence of the attentional bias in current smokers, and above all points out that the same effect is present in former smokers. We found only small and selective correlations between attentional bias and psychological variables (e.g., impulsiveness and inhibition). In particular, impulsivity is not directly associated with the AB intensity. Also, smoking characteristics (e.g., years of smoking and dependence level) and the length of the period of abstinence do not seem to modulate implicit cognition of smoking cue. Our data support the idea that the attentional bias may be considered relevant in sustaining smoking and favoring relapse.