Characterising smoking and nicotine use behaviours among women of reproductive age: a 10-year population study in England.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking affects women's fertility and is associated with substantial risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study explored trends by socioeconomic position in patterns of smoking, use of non-combustible nicotine products, and quitting activity among women of reproductive age in England. METHODS: Data come from a nationally representative monthly cross-sectional survey. Between October 2013 and October 2023, 197,266 adults (≥ 18 years) were surveyed, of whom 44,052 were women of reproductive age (18-45 years). Main outcome measures were current smoking, vaping, and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), heated tobacco products (HTPs), and nicotine pouches; mainly/exclusively smoking hand-rolled cigarettes and level of dependence among current smokers; past-year quit attempts among past-year smokers; and success of quit attempts among those who tried to quit. We modelled time trends in these outcomes, overall and by occupational social grade (ABC1 = more advantaged/C2DE = less advantaged). RESULTS: Smoking prevalence among women of reproductive age fell from 28.7% [95%CI = 26.3-31.2%] to 22.4% [19.6-25.5%] in social grades C2DE but there was an uncertain increase from 11.7% [10.2-13.5%] to 14.9% [13.4-16.6%] in ABC1. By contrast, among all adults and among men of the same age, smoking prevalence remained relatively stable in ABC1. Vaping prevalence among women of reproductive age more than tripled, from 5.1% [4.3-6.0%] to 19.7% [18.0-21.5%], with the absolute increase more pronounced among those in social grades C2DE (reaching 26.7%; 23.3-30.3%); these changes were larger than those observed among all adults but similar to those among men of the same age. The proportion of smokers mainly/exclusively smoking hand-rolled cigarettes increased from 40.5% [36.3-44.9%] to 61.4% [56.5-66.1%] among women of reproductive age; smaller increases were observed among all adults and among men of the same age. Patterns on other outcomes were largely similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among women of reproductive age, there appears to have been a rise in smoking prevalence in the more advantaged social grades over the past decade. Across social grades, there have been substantial increases in the proportion of women of reproductive age who vape and shifts from use of manufactured to hand-rolled cigarettes among those who smoke. These changes have been more pronounced than those observed in the general adult population over the same period.

Engagement With Stop Smoking Services After Referral or Signposting: A Mixed Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for smoking when people interact with healthcare services and referral of those who smoke to stop smoking services (SSSs) is a key component of efforts to tackle tobacco use. However, little is known about what happens after someone is referred or signposted to SSSs. METHODS: As part of the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department (NCT04854616), those randomised to intervention (n= 505) were referred to local SSSs (along with receiving brief advice and an e-cigarette starter kit) and those randomised to control (n= 502) were given contact details for the same services (signposted). SSS engagement data was collected: 1) directly from participants and 2) from SSS, additional qualitative data came from 33 participant interviews. RESULTS: Engagement with SSSs was very low. 3.2% (n=16) of those in the intervention group and 2.4% (n=12) in the control group reported attending a one-to-one support session. From SSS data, engagement was also low with 8.9% (n=43) of those referred engaging and 3.1% (n=15) going on to quit with SSS support. The majority of the 24 intervention participants interviewed did not recall being contacted by an SSS. CONCLUSION: Referral or signposting to stop smoking services within an Emergency Department based trial resulted in very low levels of engagement. Barriers to engagement identified included participants not being contacted by SSSs and the support offered not meeting their needs. IMPLICATIONS: Referral or signposting of those who smoke to Stop smoking services from the Emergency Department resulted in low rates of engagement in this large multi-centre randomised controlled trial. In order to better support those who smoke it may be more effective for smoking cessation advice to be offered 'in the moment' within clinical settings, and follow-up to be proactively offered rather than relying on people being motivated to contact the services themselves or engaging when contacted.

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.

Theoretically framing views of people who smoke in understanding what might work to support smoking cessation in coastal communities: adapting the TIDieR checklist to qualitative analysis for complex intervention development.

INTRODUCTION: People living in coastal communities have some of the worst health outcomes in the UK, driven in part by high smoking rates. Deprived coastal communities include socially disadvantaged groups that struggle to access traditional stop smoking services. The study aimed to seek the views of people who smoke living in coastal communities, to assess the optimal smoking cessation intervention for this population. In addition, the Template for Intervention Description Replication (TIDieR) checklist was adapted as an analytical framework for qualitative data to inform intervention design. METHODS: Current or recent ex-smokers (n = 25) were recruited to participate in qualitative interviews from a range of community locations in a deprived English seaside town. A thematic analysis of the interview data was undertaken adapting the TIDieR framework. This analysis was triangulated with relevant literature and notes from stakeholder meetings and observations to map onto the TIDieR checklist to describe the optimal intervention. RESULTS: Barriers to quitting smoking in the target population included low motivation to quit, high anxiety/boredom, normalisation of smoking and widespread illicit tobacco use. There was broad support for combining behavioural support, e-cigarettes and financial incentives, with a strong preference for the intervention to be delivered opportunistically and locally within (non-healthcare) community settings, in a non-pressurising manner, ideally by a community worker specially trained to give stop smoking support. CONCLUSIONS: An intensive community-based smoking cessation intervention was acceptable to the target population. Adapting the TIDieR checklist as a deductive qualitative analytical framework offered a systematic approach to intervention development. Combined with other intervention development activities, this ensured that the intervention design process was transparent and the proposed intervention was well defined. It is recommended that prior to intervention development researchers speak to members of the target population who may give valuable insight into the optimal intervention.

Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department (COSTED): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supporting people to quit smoking is one of the most powerful interventions to improve health. The Emergency Department (ED) represents a potentially valuable opportunity to deliver a smoking cessation intervention if it is sufficiently resourced. The objective of this trial was to determine whether an opportunistic ED-based smoking cessation intervention can help people to quit smoking. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled superiority trial conducted between January and August 2022, adults who smoked daily and attended one of six UK EDs were randomised to intervention (brief advice, e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services) or control (written information on stop smoking services). The primary outcome was biochemically validated abstinence at 6 months. RESULTS: An intention-to-treat analysis included 972 of 1443 people screened for inclusion (484 in the intervention group, 488 in the control group). Of 975 participants randomised, 3 were subsequently excluded, 17 withdrew and 287 were lost to follow-up. The 6-month biochemically-verified abstinence rate was 7.2% in the intervention group and 4.1% in the control group (relative risk 1.76; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.01; p=0.038). Self-reported 7-day abstinence at 6 months was 23.3% in the intervention group and 12.9% in the control group (relative risk 1.80; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.38; p<0.001). No serious adverse events related to taking part in the trial were reported. CONCLUSIONS: An opportunistic smoking cessation intervention comprising brief advice, an e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services is effective for sustained smoking abstinence with few reported adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04854616.

Comparing the Effects of the EU- Versus the US-JUUL Pod in a Sample of UK Smokers: Nicotine Absorption, Satisfaction, and Other Nicotine-Related Subjective Effects.

INTRODUCTION: Pod Vaping Devices (PVD) such as JUUL have become extremely popular in the United States although their uptake and use in the United Kingdom remain lower. A key difference between the United States and the United Kingdom is the nicotine strength legally permitted, typically 59 mg/mL in the United States but capped at 20 mg/mL in the United Kingdom and European Union. This may limit the ability of EU vaping devices to deliver satisfactory nicotine levels. The primary aim was to compare the EU- (18 mg/mL nicotine strength) with the U.S.-JUUL (59 mg/mL) on daily smokers' subjective experiences, craving relief, and blood nicotine levels. AIMS AND METHODS: Double-blind, counterbalanced within-participants design with two conditions: 18 mg/mL versus 59 mg/mL. On two separate occasions, UK smokers (N =19, 10 males, 9 females) vaped ad libitum for 60 mins and provided blood samples at baseline 5, 15, 30, and 60 min. Subjective effects (incl. satisfaction) were measured at 10 and 60 min and, craving and withdrawal symptoms (WS) at baseline, 10 and 60 min. RESULTS: Satisfaction did not differ between conditions. There was a significant interaction between Time and Nicotine concentration for Nicotine Hit (p = .045). Mean self-report of Nicotine Hit increased under the use of the 59 mg/mL from 10 to 60 min and decreased under the 18 mg/mL. Participants reported higher Throat Hits following use of the 59 mg/mL (p = .017). There were no differences in other subjective effects including craving, WS relief (ps > .05). Liquid consumption was doubled under the 18 versus the 59 mg/mL (p = .001) and nicotine boost was significantly higher in the 59 mg/mL at all time-points (p ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: The results did not support our hypotheses that satisfaction, craving, and withdrawal reduction would be higher with the 59 mg/mL JUUL. This could be because of the doubling of liquid consumption in the 18 mg/mL. Whether satisfaction and craving relief persist over the longer-term outside of the lab remains to be determined. IMPLICATIONS: In a 60-min ad-lib vaping session, the EU-JUUL was found to produce comparable satisfaction, craving- and withdrawal relief as the U.S.-JUUL in this sample of UK smokers. These findings could suggest that the higher nicotine concentrations available in PVDs in the United States are not necessary for providing satisfaction and improving craving and WS. However, this was at the expense of a considerable increase in liquid consumption indicative of compensatory puffing.

A Pilot E-Cigarette Voucher Scheme in a Rural County of the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: E-Cigarette voucher schemes have been piloted across the UK to support populations to quit smoking. This short report evaluates a scheme that targets vulnerable and disadvantaged smokers who had failed to quit smoking by other means. METHODS: Descriptive summary evaluation of service data on smoking outcomes and qualitative data from selected participants, as "key-informants" (n = 4) and key stakeholders (stop smoking staff, vape shop staff, and general practitioners [GPs]). RESULTS: In total, 668 participants were referred to the scheme, and 340 participants redeemed a voucher. By intention to treat analysis (ITT) 143/668 (21%) were recorded as quit smoking at 4 weeks. At 12 weeks, 7.5% of participants had quit, by ITT. Overall, the pilot project was well received by clients as it offered an affordable route into vaping for smoking cessation. GPs supported the scheme and appreciated being able to offer an alternative to entrenched smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The scheme shows promise in supporting entrenched smokers to quit smoking. The offer of similar voucher schemes across the UK suggests the potential to reduce overall smoking prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality. IMPLICATIONS: Working with GPs in a deprived area, it was possible to set-up a vape shop voucher scheme for smoking cessation. Patients with comorbidities who had tried and failed to quit smoking previously were referred to receive a vape shop voucher to be redeemed for an initial starter kit, alongside support from the stop smoking service. This innovative scheme enabled 42% of entrenched smokers who redeemed a voucher to successfully quit smoking within 4 weeks.

An Automated, Online Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of a Just-In-Time Adaptive Intervention for Smoking Cessation (Quit Sense).

INTRODUCTION: Learned smoking cues from a smoker's environment are a major cause of lapse and relapse. Quit Sense, a theory-guided Just-In-Time Adaptive Intervention smartphone app, aims to help smokers learn about their situational smoking cues and provide in-the-moment support to help manage these when quitting. METHODS: A two-arm feasibility randomized controlled trial (N = 209) to estimate parameters to inform a definitive evaluation. Smoker's willing to make a quit attempt were recruited using online paid-for adverts and randomized to "usual care" (text message referral to NHS SmokeFree website) or "usual care" plus a text message invitation to install Quit Sense. Procedures, excluding manual follow-up for nonresponders, were automated. Follow-up at 6 weeks and 6 months included feasibility, intervention engagement, smoking-related, and economic outcomes. Abstinence was verified using cotinine assessment from posted saliva samples. RESULTS: Self-reported smoking outcome completion rates at 6 months were 77% (95% CI 71%, 82%), viable saliva sample return rate was 39% (95% CI 24%, 54%), and health economic data 70% (95% CI 64%, 77%). Among Quit Sense participants, 75% (95% CI 67%, 83%) installed the app and set a quit date and, of those, 51% engaged for more than one week. The 6-month biochemically verified sustained abstinence rate (anticipated primary outcome for definitive trial), was 11.5% (12/104) among Quit Sense participants and 2.9% (3/105) for usual care (adjusted odds ratio = 4.57, 95% CIs 1.23, 16.94). No evidence of between-group differences in hypothesized mechanisms of action was found. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation feasibility was demonstrated alongside evidence supporting the effectiveness potential of Quit Sense. IMPLICATIONS: Running a primarily automated trial to initially evaluate Quit Sense was feasible, resulting in modest recruitment costs and researcher time, and high trial engagement. When invited, as part of trial participation, to install a smoking cessation app, most participants are likely to do so, and, for those using Quit Sense, an estimated one-half will engage with it for more than 1 week. Evidence that Quit Sense may increase verified abstinence at 6-month follow-up, relative to usual care, was generated, although low saliva return rates to verify smoking status contributed to considerable imprecision in the effect size estimate.

A qualitative process evaluation of social recovery therapy for enhancement of social recovery in first-episode psychosis (SUPEREDEN3).

BACKGROUND: Many individuals with first-episode psychosis experience severe and persistent social disability despite receiving specialist early intervention. The SUPEREDEN3 trial assessed whether augmenting early intervention in psychosis services with Social Recovery Therapy (SRT) would lead to better social recovery. AIMS: A qualitative process evaluation was conducted to explore implementation and mechanisms of SRT impact from the perspective of SUPEREDEN3 participants. METHOD: A subsample of SUPEREDEN3 trial participants (n = 19) took part in semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Trial participants were early intervention service users aged 16-35 years with severe and persistent social disability. Both SRT plus early intervention and early intervention alone arm participants were interviewed to facilitate better understanding of the context in which SRT was delivered and to aid identification of mechanisms specific to SRT. RESULTS: The six themes identified were used to generate an explanatory model of SRT's enhancement of social recovery. Participant experiences highlight the importance of the therapist cultivating increased self-understanding and assertively encouraging clients to face feared situations in a way that is perceived as supportive, while managing ongoing symptoms. The sense of achievement generated by reaching targets linked to personally meaningful goals promotes increased self-agency, and generates hope and optimism. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest potentially important processes through which social recovery was enhanced in this trial, which will be valuable in ensuring the benefits observed can be replicated. Participant accounts provide hope that, with the right support, even clients who have persistent symptoms and the most severe disability can make a good social recovery.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy for the prevention and treatment of long-term social disability among young people with emerging severe mental illness (PRODIGY): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention. AIMS: We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone. METHOD: A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16-25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation. RESULTS: We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was -4.44 (95% CI -10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.

Longer-term use of electronic cigarettes when provided as a stop smoking aid: Systematic review with meta-analyses.

Moderate certainty evidence supports use of nicotine electronic cigarettes to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. However, there is less certainty regarding how long people continue to use e-cigarettes after smoking cessation attempts. We set out to synthesise data on the proportion of people still using e-cigarettes or other study products at 6 months or longer in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. We updated Cochrane searches (November 2021). For the first time, we meta-analysed prevalence of continued e-cigarette use among individuals allocated to e-cigarette conditions, and among those individuals who had successfully quit smoking. We updated meta-analyses comparing proportions continuing product use among individuals allocated to use nicotine e-cigarettes and other treatments. We included 19 studies (n = 7787). The pooled prevalence of continued e-cigarette use at 6 months or longer was 54% (95% CI: 46% to 61%, I2 86%, N = 1482) in participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions. Of participants who had quit combustible cigarettes overall 70% were still using e-cigarettes at six months or longer (95% CI: 53% to 82%, I2 73%, N = 215). Heterogeneity in direction of effect precluded meta-analysis comparing long-term use of nicotine e-cigarettes with NRT. More people were using nicotine e-cigarettes at longest follow-up compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, but CIs included no difference (risk ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.41, n = 601). The levels of continued e-cigarette use observed may reflect the success of e-cigarettes as a quitting tool. Further research is needed to establish drivers of variation in and implications of continued use of e-cigarettes.

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.

Healthcare Professionals' Beliefs, Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Around Vaping in Pregnancy and Postpartum: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Finding effective ways to help pregnant women quit smoking and maintain long-term abstinence is a public health priority. Electronic cigarettes (ie, vaping) could be a suitable cessation tool in pregnancy for those who struggle to quit; however, healthcare professionals (HCP) must be informed about these devices to offer appropriate advice. This study used the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore HCP attitudes towards vaping in pregnancy and postpartum; beliefs about the health risks of vaping; perceived barriers and facilitators of vaping in pregnancy; knowledge of current guidelines and policies; and training needs. METHODS: Interviews (n = 60) were conducted with midwives (n = 17), health visitors (n = 10), general practitioners (n = 15) and stop smoking specialists (n = 18) across the United Kingdom. Interview transcriptions were analyzed thematically using the framework approach and the COM-B. RESULTS: Discussing vaping as a tool for quitting smoking in pregnancy was prevented by a lack of capability (limited knowledge of vaping, lack of training in smoking cessation); lack of opportunity (restricted by organizational policies and guidelines, lack of time and financial issues impacting on training), and negative social influences (sensationalist media and stigma associated with vaping in pregnancy); and lack of motivation (fear of future litigation and comebacks should adverse effects from vaping arise). CONCLUSIONS: Factors related to capability, opportunity, and motivation were identified that influence HCPs attitudes and behaviors towards vaping in pregnancy. Gaps in knowledge and training needs were identified, which could inform the development of targeted vaping training. IMPLICATIONS: Vaping could be suitable in pregnancy for those struggling to quit smoking. However, HCPs must be informed about these devices to offer appropriate advice. These data extend our knowledge of factors influencing HCP attitudes and behaviors towards vaping in pregnancy. Generally, vaping was perceived as safer than cigarettes, but a perceived lack of evidence, health and safety risks, dependency, and regulation issues were concerning. Considering our findings, greater efforts are needed to ensure HCPs are sufficiently informed about vaping and guidelines available. More importance should be placed on training for all HCPs who have contact with pregnant women.

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.

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.

How a sample of English stop smoking services and vape shops adapted during the early COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic in England led to major changes in the delivery of support via stop smoking services (SSS) and to the widespread temporary closure of bricks and mortar e-cigarette retailers (vape shops herein). The impact of disruptions across the smoking cessation support landscape has not been fully documented. The purpose of this study was to capture how SSS and vape shops in England were affected and adapted their 'business as usual' during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted between March and July 2020. Surveys were disseminated through online networks, professional forums and contacts. Open-ended qualitative responses were coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Responses from 46 SSS and 59 vape shops were included. SSS were able to adapt during this period, e.g. offering a remote service. A high percentage (74.6%) of vape shops had to close and were unable to make changes; 71.2% reported business declining. For both vape shops and SSS qualitative data revealed practical challenges to adapting, but also new pathways to support and co-working. CONCLUSION: The closure of vape shops appears to have most impacted smaller bricks and mortar shops affecting businesses by decline in customers and impacting staff (furlough). For those services that could stay open there may be lessons learned in how to support vulnerable and disadvantaged people who smoke by considering new pathways to support.

Review: Delivering mental health support within schools and colleges - a thematic synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation of indicated psychological interventions for adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the role of schools and colleges in the provision of mental health services for young people has the potential to improve early intervention and access to treatment. We aimed to understand what factors influence the successful implementation of indicated psychological interventions within schools and colleges to help guide increased provision of mental health support within education settings. METHODS: Systematic search for studies that have reported barriers or facilitators to the implementation of indicated interventions for adolescent emotional disorders delivered within schools and further education/sixth form colleges (CRD42018102830). Databases searched were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, ASSIA, ERIC and British Education Index. A thematic synthesis of factors reported to impact implementation was conducted. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and sixty-nine records and 177 full texts were screened. Fifty studies were identified for inclusion, all of which were of school-based interventions. Eleven analytic themes were developed encompassing intervention characteristics, organisational capacity, training and technical assistance, provider characteristics and community-level factors. Findings indicate the need to select appropriate interventions, consider logistical challenges of the school context and provide training and supervision to enable staff to deliver interventions with fidelity. However, structural and environmental support is required for these facilitators to have the greatest impact on successful implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing indicated school-based mental health interventions is challenging. Those involved in planning school-based mental health initiatives must be alert to the impact of factors on multiple interacting levels. There is a lack of research on implementing mental health support within further education and sixth form colleges. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: Increased utilisation of schools and colleges as a setting for early intervention has been proposed as a means of improving access to mental health treatment, but successful implementation of mental health interventions within educational settings is challenging. Based on a synthesis of current evidence, we recommend that young people and education professionals should be involved in the selection of school-based interventions to ensure they are acceptable and practical to deliver within the logistical constraints of the school environment. Those delivering interventions within schools, as well as staff involved in identifying young people who might benefit from these interventions, must receive high-quality ongoing training and support. Senior school leaders play an important role in championing mental health interventions and developing a school culture that prioritises mental well-being. Health and education policy should be designed to promote a cross-sector focus on the emotional health of young people. There is a lack of evidence on the implementation of indicated psychological interventions within sixth form and further education colleges.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Online Information on Electronic Cigarettes: Comparative Study of Relevant Websites From Baidu and Google Search Engines.

BACKGROUND: Online information on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) may influence people's perception and use of e-cigarettes. Websites with information on e-cigarettes in the Chinese language have not been systematically assessed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the types and credibility of Web-based information on e-cigarettes identified from Google (in English) and Baidu (in Chinese) search engines. METHODS: We used the keywords vaping or e-cigarettes to conduct a search on Google and the equivalent Chinese characters for Baidu. The first 50 unique and relevant websites from each of the two search engines were included in this analysis. The main characteristics of the websites, credibility of the websites, and claims made on the included websites were systematically assessed and compared. RESULTS: Compared with websites on Google, more websites on Baidu were owned by manufacturers or retailers (15/50, 30% vs 33/50, 66%; P<.001). None of the Baidu websites, compared to 24% (12/50) of Google websites, were provided by public or health professional institutions. The Baidu websites were more likely to contain e-cigarette advertising (P<.001) and less likely to provide information on health education (P<.001). The overall credibility of the included Baidu websites was lower than that of the Google websites (P<.001). An age restriction warning was shown on all advertising websites from Google (15/15) but only on 10 of the 33 (30%) advertising websites from Baidu (P<.001). Conflicting or unclear health and social claims were common on the included websites. CONCLUSIONS: Although conflicting or unclear claims on e-cigarettes were common on websites from both Baidu and Google search engines, there was a lack of online information from public health authorities in China. Unbiased information and evidence-based recommendations on e-cigarettes should be provided by public health authorities to help the public make informed decisions regarding the use of e-cigarettes.

Reported patterns of vaping to support long-term abstinence from smoking: a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of vapers.

BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes are the most popular aid to smoking cessation attempts in England and the USA. This research examined associations between e-cigarette device characteristics and patterns of use, tobacco-smoking relapse, and smoking abstinence. METHODS: A convenience sample of 371 participants with experience of vaping, and tobacco-smoking abstinence and/or relapse completed an online cross-sectional survey about e-cigarettes. Factors associated with smoking relapse were examined using multiple linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Most participants were self-reported long-term abstinent smokers (86.3%) intending to continue vaping. Most initiated e-cigarette use with a vape pen (45.8%) or cig-a-like (38.7%) before moving onto a tank device (89%). Due to missing data, managed through pairwise deletion, only around 70 participants were included in some of the main analyses. Those using a tank or vape pen appeared less likely to relapse than those using a cig-a-like (tank vs. cig-a-like OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.64, p = 0.019). There was an inverse association between starting self-reported e-cigarette liquid nicotine concentration and relapse, interacting with device type (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, p = 0.047), suggesting that risk of relapse may have been greater if starting with a low e-cigarette liquid nicotine concentration and/or cig-a-like device. Participants reported moving from tobacco-flavored cig-a-likes to fruit/sweet/food flavors with tank devices. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of how people have successfully maintained tobacco-smoking abstinence using vaping could help other tobacco smokers wishing to quit tobacco smoking through vaping.