Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of vaporized nicotine products versus nicotine replacement therapy for tobacco smoking cessation in a low-socioeconomic status Australian population: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Vaping to quit smoking: Qualitative study of people receiving opioid agonist treatment

INTRODUCTION

Most patients receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) smoke tobacco. Approved cessation interventions are less effective in this group than the wider population. We investigated how people on OAT experience nicotine vaping to quit smoking.

METHODS

Patients on OAT randomised to the vaping arm of a smoking cessation trial were invited to participate in structured interviews incorporating broad pre-determined themes. A qualitative descriptive approach employing template analysis was used. Four authors coded transcripts, discussed discrepancies, modified the template using both inductive and deductive approaches. Authors made explicit their starting orientations and independent authors sought disconfirmatory data in a subsequent round of analysis.

RESULTS

Four women and eight men (median age 44 years) participated, including four who identified as Aboriginal. Participants reported vaping as cheaper, more acceptable and less stigmatising than smoking but expressed concerns about ongoing accessibility due to the Australian prescription access model. Some found it technically challenging at first, but not more so than standard nicotine replacement therapies. Participants gave accounts of craving and withdrawal experiences, including supplementary use of nicotine patches, and compulsions to vape frequently and intensely, potentially indicating need for higher nicotine dosage. Participants generally reported that vaping helped them quit smoking, though some worried about swapping nicotine addictions. Others were glad to be using a lower-risk alternative.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This group reported varied experiences of nicotine vaping but were mainly optimistic that it could help them and others quit smoking. This was despite initial nicotine cravings and concerns about remaining addicted long-term.

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.

Perspectives on limiting tobacco access and supporting access to nicotine vaping products among clients of residential drug and alcohol treatment services in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco endgame strategies aim to drive down population smoking rates, the success of which can be improved with public buy-in, including from populations with high smoking rates such as alcohol and other drug (AOD) service clients. This study aimed to explore acceptability of tobacco retail and nicotine reduction, and subsidised nicotine vaping to support AOD service clients following a smoking cessation attempt.

METHODS

We interviewed 31 Australian AOD service clients who currently or previously smoked, following a 12-week randomised trial comparing nicotine replacement therapy with nicotine vaping product (NVP) for smoking cessation. Participants were asked how effectively three scenarios would support tobacco cessation: tobacco retailer reduction, very low-nicotine cigarette standard and subsidised NVP access. We thematically analysed participant views on how each approach would support tobacco abstinence.

RESULTS

Tobacco retailer reduction raised concerns about increasing travel and accessing cigarettes from alternate sources, with generally lower acceptability, though a range of perspectives were provided. Reducing nicotine in tobacco products was described as reducing appeal of smoking and potentially increasing illicit purchases of non-reduced nicotine products. Clients of AOD services were highly accepting of subsidised NVP access for tobacco cessation, as this would partly address financial and socioeconomic barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian tobacco control policy should consider how these approaches impact ease and likelihood of tobacco access by AOD service clients in relation to the general population. Understanding clients' acceptability of tobacco control and endgame measures can inform how to avoid potential unintended consequences for these clients.