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

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine the safety of e-cigarettes (EC) and nicotine patches (NRT) when used to help pregnant smokers quit. DESIGN: A recent trial of EC versus NRT reported safety outcomes in the randomized arms. We conducted a further analysis based on product use. SETTING: Twenty-three hospitals in England and a stop-smoking service in Scotland took part. PARTICIPANTS: The participants comprised 1140 pregnant smokers. INTERVENTIONS: We compared women using and not using EC and NRT regularly during pregnancy. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements included nicotine intake compared with baseline, birth weight, other pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal respiratory symptoms and relapse in early abstainers. FINDINGS: Use of EC was more common than use of NRT (47.3% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001). Women who stopped smoking (abstainers) and used EC at the end-of-pregnancy (EOP) reduced their salivary cotinine by 45% [49.3 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -79.8 to -10]. Only one abstainer used NRT at EOP. In dual users, cotinine increased by 19% (24 ng/ml, 95% CI = 3.5-68). In women reporting a reduction of at least 50% in cigarette consumption, cotinine levels increased by 10% in those using nicotine products and by 9% in those who did not. Birth weights in dual users and exclusive smokers were the same (3.1 kg). Birth weight in abstainers using either nicotine product was higher than in smokers [3.3 kg, standard deviation (SD) = 0.7] versus 3.1 kg, SD = 0.6; difference = 0.15 kg, 95% CI = 0.05-0.25) and not different from abstainers not using nicotine products (3.1 kg, SD = 0.8). Abstainers and smokers using nicotine products had no worse pregnancy outcomes or more adverse events than abstainers and smokers not using them. EC users reported more improvements than non-users in cough [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37-0.93] and phlegm (aRR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.31-0.92), controlling for smoking status. EC or NRT use had no association with relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Regular use of e-cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes.

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

Importance: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are often used by smokers as an aid to stopping smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their efficacy compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and no evidence is available on how their efficacy compares with that of varenicline. Objective: To evaluate whether ECs are superior to NRT and noninferior to varenicline in helping smokers quit. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted at 7 sites in China and including participants who were smoking at least 10 cigarettes per day and motivated to quit, not using stop-smoking medications or EC, and willing to use any of the study products. Participants were first recruited in May 2021, and data analysis was conducted in December 2022. Interventions: A cartridge-based EC (30 mg/mL nicotine salt for 2 weeks and 50 mg/mL after that), varenicline (0.5 mg, once a day for 3 days; 0.5 mg, twice a day for 4 days; and 1 mg, twice a day, after that), and 2 mg (for smokers of ≤20 cigarettes per day) or 4 mg (>20 cigarettes per day) nicotine chewing gum, all provided for 12 weeks and accompanied by minimal behavioral support (an invitation to join a self-help internet forum). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was sustained abstinence from smoking at 6 months as validated by an expired-air carbon monoxide reading (<8 parts per million). Participants lost to follow-up were included as nonabstainers. Results: Of 1068 participants, 357 (33.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 33.9 (3.1) years. A total of 409 (38.3%), 409 (38.3%), and 250 (23.4%) participants were randomized to the EC, varenicline, and NRT arms, respectively. The 6-month biochemically validated abstinence rates were 15.7% (n = 64), 14.2% (n = 58), and 8.8% (n = 22) in the EC, varenicline, and NRT study arms, respectively. The quit rate in the EC arm was noninferior to the varenicline arm (absolute risk reduction, 1.47%; 95% CI, -1.41% to 4.34%) and higher than in the NRT arm (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.15-3.21). Treatment adherence was similar in all study arms during the initial 3 months, but 257 participants (62.8%) in the EC arm were still using ECs at 6 months, with no further use in the 2 other study arms. The most common adverse reactions were throat irritation (32 [7.8%]) and mouth irritation (28 [6.9%]) in the EC arm, nausea (36 [8.8%]) in the varenicline arm, and throat irritation (20 [8.0%]) and mouth irritation (22 [8.8%]) in the NRT arm. No serious adverse events were recorded. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial found that when all treatments were provided with minimal behavior support, the efficacy of EC was noninferior to varenicline and superior to nicotine chewing gum. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100048156.

Helping pregnant smokers quit: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy.

Background: Some pregnant smokers try e-cigarettes, but effectiveness and safety of such use are unknown. Objectives: To compare effectiveness and safety of nicotine patches and e-cigarettes in pregnancy. Design: A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Setting: Twenty-three hospitals across England, and a Stop Smoking Service in Scotland. Participants: One thousand one hundred and forty pregnant daily smokers (12-24 weeks' gestation) motivated to stop smoking, with no strong preference for using nicotine patches or e-cigarettes. Interventions: Participants in the e-cigarette arm were posted a refillable e-cigarette device with two 10 ml bottles of tobacco-flavoured e-liquid (18 mg nicotine). Participants in the nicotine patches arm were posted a 2-week supply of 15 mg/16-hour nicotine patches. Supplies were provided for up to 8 weeks. Participants sourced further supplies themselves as needed. Participants in both arms received support calls prior to their target quit date, on the quit date, and weekly for the next 4 weeks. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was validated prolonged abstinence at the end of pregnancy. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included self-reported abstinence at different time points, treatment adherence and safety outcomes. Results: Only 55% of self-reported abstainers mailed back useable saliva samples. Due to this, validated sustained abstinence rates were low (6.8% vs. 4.4% in the e-cigarettes and nicotine patches arms, respectively, risk ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.53; Bayes factor = 2.7). In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis that excluded abstainers using non-allocated products, the difference became significant (6.8% vs. 3.6%, risk ratio = 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 3.26; Bayes factor = 10). Almost a third of the sample did not set a target quit date and the uptake of support calls was low, as was the initial product use. At end of pregnancy, 33.8% versus 5.6% of participants were using their allocated product in the e-cigarettes versus nicotine patches arm (risk ratio = 6.01, 95% confidence interval 4.21 to 8.58). Regular use of e-cigarettes in the nicotine patches arm was more common than use of nicotine replacement products in the e-cigarette arm (17.8% vs. 2.8%). Rates of adverse events and adverse birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms, apart from participants in the e-cigarette arm having fewer infants with low birthweight (<2500 g) (9.6% vs. 14.8%, risk ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.90; Bayes factor = 10.3). Limitations: Low rates of validation reduced the study power. A substantial proportion of participants did not use the support on offer sufficiently to test its benefits. Sample size may have been too small to detect differences in less frequent adverse effects. Conclusions: E-cigarettes were not significantly more effective than nicotine patches in the primary analysis, but when e-cigarettes use in the nicotine patches arm was accounted for, e-cigarettes were almost twice as effective as patches in all abstinence outcomes. In pregnant smokers seeking help, compared to nicotine patches, e-cigarettes are probably more effective, do not pose more risks to birth outcomes assessed in this study and may reduce the incidence of low birthweight. Future work: Routine monitoring of smoking cessation and birth outcomes in pregnant women using nicotine patches and e-cigarettes and further studies are needed to confirm these results. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN62025374 and Eudract 2017-001237-65. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Like many other smokers in the UK, some pregnant smokers try to limit or stop smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. It is not known whether this helps with stopping smoking and whether using e-cigarettes has any bad effects on the baby. We recruited 1140 pregnant smokers who wanted to quit. A random half were given nicotine patches, which are commonly used to help smokers quit. The other half were given an e-cigarette. They also received six weekly phone calls to support them in stopping smoking. We then looked at how many in each group stopped smoking by the end of pregnancy. More women stopped smoking in the group that was given an e-cigarette, but the difference was small and could be due to chance. However, some of the women in the nicotine patch group who had successfully stopped smoking were using e-cigarettes rather than patches. When these (and women in the e-cigarette group who used patches) were not counted, e-cigarettes helped almost twice as many women stop smoking than patches. E-cigarettes were better than patches in preventing low birthweight (having babies who weigh less than 2.5 kg). Otherwise, women given patches and those given e-cigarettes (and their babies) had similar numbers of medical complications. For pregnant women who smoke and need help to quit, e-cigarettes are probably more helpful than nicotine patches, and do not pose any additional risks to women or their babies.

Effects of reduced-risk nicotine-delivery products on smoking prevalence and cigarette sales: an observational study.

Background: It is not currently clear what impact alternative nicotine-delivery products (electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco products and snus) have on smoking rates and cigarette sales. Objective: To assess whether access to these products promotes smoking in the population. Design and data sources: We examined associations of alternative nicotine product use and sales with smoking rates and cigarette sales overall, and in different age and socioeconomic groups, and compared smoking prevalence over time in countries with contrasting regulations of these products. For electronic cigarettes, we examined data from countries with historically similar smoking trajectories but differing current electronic cigarette regulations (United Kingdom and United States of America vs. Australia, where sales of nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes are banned); for heated tobacco, we used data from countries with state tobacco monopolies, where cigarette and heated tobacco sales data are available (Japan, South Korea), and for snus we used data from Sweden. Analysis methods: We pre-specified dynamic time series analyses to explore associations between use and sales of alternative nicotine-delivery products and smoking prevalence and cigarette sales, and time series analyses to compare trends of smoking prevalence in countries with different nicotine product policies. Results: Because of data and analysis limitations (see below), results are only tentative and need to be interpreted with caution. Only a few findings reached statistical significance and for most results the Bayes factor indicated inconclusive evidence. We did not find an association between rates of smoking and rates of the use of alternative nicotine products. The increase in heated tobacco product sales in Japan was accompanied by a decrease in cigarette sales. The decline in smoking prevalence seems to have been slower in Australia than in the United Kingdom overall, and slower than in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America among young people and also in lower socioeconomic groups. The decline in cigarette sales has also accelerated faster in the United Kingdom than in Australia. Limitations: Most of the available data had insufficient data points for robust time series analyses. The assumption of our statistical approach that causal interactions are more likely to be detected when longer-term changes are screened out may not apply for short time series and in product interaction scenarios, where short-term fluctuations can be caused by, for example, fluctuations in prosperity or product supplies. In addition, due to dual use, prevalence figures for smoking and alternative product use overlap. The ecological study design limits the causal inferences that can be made. Longer time periods are needed for any effects of exclusive use of the new products on smoking prevalence to emerge. Conclusions: We detected some indications that alternative nicotine products are competing with cigarettes rather than promoting smoking and that regulations that allow their sales are associated with a reduction rather than an increase of smoking, but the findings are inconclusive because of insufficient data points and issues with the assumptions of the pre-specified statistical analyses. Future work: As further prevalence and sales data emerge the analyses will become more informative. Accessing sales figures in particular is the current research priority. Study registration: The project is registered on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/bd3ah. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR129968) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Alternative nicotine-delivery products are now available which are much less hazardous than cigarettes. These include electronic cigarettes (which contain no tobacco), Swedish snus (oral tobacco with low levels of cancer-causing chemicals) and heated tobacco products. There is concern that these products attract young people to smoking and discourage smokers from quitting (i.e. increase smoking), but it is also possible that they help smokers quit and steer young people who find nicotine attractive away from smoking, or that they have no effect on smoking. To clarify which of these end results is likely, we looked at data on smoking and on the use of these alternative products over time, and also compared data on smoking from countries that have similar tobacco control history, but that either allow (i.e. United Kingdom and United States of America) or ban the sale of electronic cigarettes (i.e. Australia). As the sale of heated tobacco products increased in Japan, sales of cigarettes seem to have gone down, suggesting that this product is competing with cigarettes rather than encouraging their use. We also found that the drop in smoking may have been slower in Australia than in the United Kingdom. For young people and those on low income specifically, the reduction in smoking was slower in Australia than in both the United Kingdom and United States of America. Allowing alternative nicotine products to be sold seems to have been linked with lowered rather than increased rates of smoking. Our findings, however, are uncertain because only limited data were available. Clearer conclusions will become possible as more data on the use and especially on the sales of alternative nicotine products are collected.

Managing an extension of screening intervals: Avoiding boom and bust in health care workloads.

Extending screening intervals in ongoing cancer screening programmes can lead to challenging year-on-year variations in the number of screening tests. We explored how such variation could be diminished with a managed transition to the extended interval. We defined three extension scenarios: immediate extension for the entire target population; stepped transition by birth cohort; and gradual transition by reducing the number of available screening appointments. These were compared to a situation in which the interval remains unchanged in a demographic model covering a 15-year period. The model was populated with observed parameters from England, a real-world setting recommending cervical screening with 3-year intervals at age 25-49 and 5-year intervals at age 50-64. Informed by typical changes currently considered by several European programmes including the programme in England, we explored the effect on screening test numbers of an extension of the 3-year interval to 5 years for women younger than 50. All three extension scenarios resulted in similar cumulative numbers of screening tests, which were about 30% lower compared to a situation in which the interval would remain unchanged. However, the year-on-year variation in the number of screening tests varied between the scenarios. This variation was around 4-fold for the immediate scenario. In the stepped scenario, the yearly numbers could differ by around 20%, whereas in the gradual scenario they were virtually constant. A managed interval extension, transitioning different groups of the target population at different times, can substantially reduce the yearly variation in screening workload without increasing the total number of screening tests in the long term.

Cancer incidence and mortality in Australia from 2020 to 2044 and an exploratory analysis of the potential effect of treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic: a statistical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term projections of cancer incidence and mortality estimate the future burden of cancer in a population, and can be of great use in informing the planning of health services and the management of resources. We aimed to estimate incidence and mortality rates and numbers of new cases and deaths up until 2044 for all cancers combined and for 21 individual cancer types in Australia. We also illustrate the potential effect of treatment delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic on future colorectal cancer mortality rates. METHODS: In this statistical modelling study, cancer incidence and mortality rates in Australia from 2020 to 2044 were projected based on data up to 2017 and 2019, respectively. Cigarette smoking exposure (1945-2019), participation rates in the breast cancer screening programme (1996-2019), and prostate-specific antigen testing rates (1994-2020) were included where relevant. The baseline projection model using an age-period-cohort model or generalised linear model for each cancer type was selected based on model fit statistics and validation with pre-COVID-19 observed data. To assess the impact of treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer mortality, we obtained data on incidence, survival, prevalence, and cancer treatment for colorectal cancer from different authorities. The relative risks of death due to system-caused treatment delays were derived from a published systematic review. Numbers of excess colorectal cancer deaths were estimated using the relative risk of death per week of treatment delay and different durations of delay under a number of hypothetical scenarios. FINDINGS: Projections indicate that in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic effects, the age-standardised incidence rate for all cancers combined for males would decline over 2020-44, and for females the incidence rate would be relatively stable in Australia. The mortality rates for all cancers combined for both males and females are expected to continuously decline during 2020-44. The total number of new cases are projected to increase by 47·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 35·2-61·3) for males, from 380 306 in 2015-19 to 560 744 (95% UI 514 244-613 356) in 2040-44, and by 54·4% (95% UI 40·2-70·5) for females, from 313 263 in 2015-19 to 483 527 (95% UI 439 069-534 090) in 2040-44. The number of cancer deaths are projected to increase by 36·4% (95% UI 15·3-63·9) for males, from 132 440 in 2015-19 to 180 663 (95% UI 152 719-217 126) in 2040-44, and by 36·6% (95% UI 15·8-64·1) for females, from 102 103 in 2015-19 to 139 482 (95% UI 118 186-167 527) in 2040-44, due to population ageing and growth. The example COVID-19 pandemic scenario of a 6-month health-care system disruption with 16-week treatment delays for colorectal cancer patients could result in 460 (95% UI 338-595) additional deaths and 437 (95% UI 314-570) deaths occurring earlier than expected in 2020-44. INTERPRETATION: These projections can inform health service planning for cancer care and treatment in Australia. Despite the continuous decline in cancer mortality rates, and the decline or plateau in incidence rates, our projections suggest an overall 51% increase in the number of new cancer cases and a 36% increase in the number of cancer deaths over the 25-year projection period. This means that continued efforts to increase screening uptake and to control risk factors, including smoking exposure, obesity, physical inactivity, alcohol use, and infections, must remain public health priorities. FUNDING: Partly funded by Cancer Council Australia.

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

Nicotine replacement therapy, in the form of nicotine patches, is commonly offered to pregnant women who smoke to help them to stop smoking, but this approach has limited efficacy in this population. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are also used by pregnant women who smoke but their safety and efficacy in pregnancy are unknown. Here, we report the results of a randomized controlled trial in 1,140 participants comparing refillable e-cigarettes with nicotine patches. Pregnant women who smoked were randomized to e-cigarettes (n = 569) or nicotine patches (n = 571). In the unadjusted analysis of the primary outcome, validated prolonged quit rates at the end of pregnancy in the two study arms were not significantly different (6.8% versus 4.4% in the e-cigarette and patch arms, respectively; relative risk (RR) = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.95-2.53, P = 0.08). However, some participants in the nicotine patch group also used e-cigarettes during the study. In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding abstinent participants who used non-allocated products, e-cigarettes were more effective than patches (6.8% versus 3.6%; RR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.14-3.26, P = 0.02). Safety outcomes included adverse events and maternal and birth outcomes. The safety profile was found to be similar for both study products, however, low birthweight (<2,500 g) was less frequent in the e-cigarette arm (14.8% versus 9.6%; RR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.47-0.90, P = 0.01). Other adverse events and birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms. E-cigarettes might help women who are pregnant to stop smoking, and their safety for use in pregnancy is similar to that of nicotine patches. ISRCTN62025374.

Extension of cervical screening intervals with primary human papillomavirus testing: observational study of English screening pilot data.

OBJECTIVES: To provide updated evidence about the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cervical cancer after a negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test in primary cervical screening, by age group and test assay. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Real world data from the English HPV screening pilot's first and second rounds (2013-16, follow-up to end of 2019). PARTICIPANTS: 1 341 584 women. INTERVENTIONS: Cervical screening with HPV testing or liquid based cytological testing (cytology or smear tests). Women screened with cytology were referred to colposcopy after high grade cytological abnormalities or after borderline or low grade abnormalities combined with a positive HPV triage test. Women screened with HPV testing who were positive were referred at baseline if their cytology triage test showed at least borderline abnormalities or after a retest (early recall) at 12 and 24 months if they had persistent abnormalities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Detection of CIN3+ and cervical cancer after a negative HPV test. RESULTS: For women younger than 50 years, second round detection of CIN3+ in this study was significantly lower after a negative HPV screen in the first round than after cytology testing (1.21/1000 v 4.52/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.30), as was the risk of interval cervical cancer (1.31/100 000 v 2.90/100 000 woman years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.44, 0.23 to 0.84). Risk of an incident CIN3+ detected at the second screening round in the pilot five years after a negative HPV test was even lower in women older than 50 years, than in three years in women younger than 50 years (0.57/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 0.27 to 0.79). Women with negative HPV tests at early recall after a positive HPV screening test without cytological abnormalities had a higher detection rate of CIN3+ at the second routine recall than women who initially tested HPV negative (5.39/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 3.27, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 4.84). Detection after a negative result on a clinically validated APTIMA mRNA HPV test was similar to that after clinically validated cobas and RealTime DNA tests (for CIN3+ at the second round 1.32/1000 v 1.14/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 0.73 to 1.50). CONCLUSIONS: These data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used: to five years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older. The screening interval for HPV positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at three years.

COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening in England.

INTRODUCTION: In England, routine invitations for cervical screening were reduced between April 2020 and June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We quantify the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on attendance and excess diagnoses of cervical cancer (CC). METHODS: Using Public Health England CC screening data on laboratory samples received in 2018 as a baseline we quantify the reduction in screening attendances due to the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and March 2021 for women aged 25-64. We model the impact on excess CC diagnoses assuming once invitations resume 87.5% of women attend within 12 months and 12.5% delay screening for 3 or 5 years (depending on age). RESULTS: The number of samples received at laboratories was 91% lower than expected during April, 85% during May and 43% during June 2020 compared to the same period in 2018. Although on average laboratories received 12.6% more samples between August 2020 and April 2021 than over the same months in 2018, by April 2021 there was a short fall of 200,949 samples (6.4% fewer than in 2018). An excess of 41 CC (4.0 per 100,000 women with a maximum screening delay of 12 months) are predicted to occur among the estimated 1,024,794 women attending this screening round with a delay. An excess of 60 CC (41.0 per 100,000 women) are predicted to occur among the estimated 146,391 women who do not attend this screening round. CONCLUSION: Prompt restoration of cervical screening services limited the impact on excess CC diagnoses. However, in 2020 a 6.4% shortfall of screening samples was observed. Every effort should be made to reassure these women that services are open and safe to attend.

The impact of catch-up bivalent human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical screening outcomes: an observational study from the English HPV primary screening pilot.

BACKGROUND: In England, bivalent vaccination (Cervarix) against high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) genotypes 16/18 was offered in a population-based catch-up campaign in 2008-2010 to girls aged 14-17 years. These women are now entering the national cervical screening programme. We determined the impact of catch-up bivalent vaccination on their screening outcomes. METHODS: We studied the overall and genotype-specific screening outcomes in 108,138 women aged 24-25 (offered vaccination) and 26-29 years (not offered vaccination) included in the English HPV screening pilot between 2013 and 2018. RESULTS: At 24-25 years, the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) associated with HPV16/18 decreased from 3 to 1% (p < 0.001), with estimated vaccine effectiveness of 87% (95% CI: 82-91%). The detection of any CIN2+ halved from 6 to 3% (p < 0.001), with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 72% (95% CI: 66-77%). The positive predictive value of a colposcopy for CIN2+ decreased for both low-grade (p < 0.001) and high-grade (p = 0.02) abnormalities on triage cytology. The decreases in screen-detected abnormalities at age 26-29 were of a substantially smaller magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm high effectiveness of bivalent HPV vaccination delivered through a population-based catch-up campaign in England. These findings add to the rationale for extending screening intervals for vaccinated cohorts.

Evaluating the effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with usual care for smoking cessation when offered to smokers at homeless centres: protocol for a multi-centre cluster-randomized controlled trial in Great Britain.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smoking is extremely common among adults experiencing homelessness, but there is lack of evidence for treatment efficacy. E-cigarettes are an effective quitting aid, but they have not been widely tested in smokers with complex health and social needs. Here we build upon our cluster feasibility trial and evaluate the offer of an e-cigarette or usual care to smokers accessing a homeless centre. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multi-centre two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial with mixed-method embedded process and economic evaluation in homeless centres in England, Scotland and Wales. Adult smokers (18+ years; n = 480) accessing homeless centres and who are known to centre staff and willing to consent. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Clusters (n = 32) will be randomized to either an e-cigarette starter pack with weekly allocations of nicotine containing e-liquid for 4 weeks [choice of flavours (menthol, fruit and tobacco) and strengths 12 mg/ml and 18 mg/ml] or the usual care intervention, which comprises very brief advice and a leaflet signposting to the local stop smoking service. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome is 24-week sustained carbon monoxide-validated smoking cessation (Russell Standard defined, intention-to-treat analysis). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (i) 50% smoking reduction (cigarettes per day) from baseline to 24 weeks; (ii) 7-day point prevalence quit rates at 4-, 12- and 24-week follow-up; (iii) changes in risky smoking practices (e.g. sharing cigarettes, smoking discarded cigarettes) from baseline to 4, 12 and 24 weeks; (iv) cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and (v) fidelity of intervention implementation; mechanisms of change; contextual influences and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study, to our knowledge, to randomly assign smokers experiencing homelessness to an e-cigarette and usual care intervention to measure smoking abstinence with embedded process and economic evaluations. If effective, its results will be used to inform the larger-scale implementation of offering e-cigarettes throughout homeless centres to aid smoking cessation.

E-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement treatment as harm reduction interventions for smokers who find quitting difficult: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The majority of smokers accessing the current best treatments continue to smoke. We aimed to test if e-cigarettes (EC) compared with nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) can help such smokers to reduce smoking. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of EC (n = 68) versus NRT (n = 67) with 6-month follow-up. SETTING: Stop smoking service in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 135 smokers (median age = 40 years, 51% male) previously unable to stop smoking with conventional treatments. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received either NRT of their choice (8-week supply) or an EC starter pack and instructions to purchase further e-liquids of strength and flavours of their choice themselves. Products were accompanied by minimal behavioural support. MEASUREMENTS: Participants who reported that they stopped smoking or reduced their daily cigarette consumption by at least 50% at 6-month follow-up were invited to provide a carbon monoxide (CO) reading. The primary outcome was biochemically validated reduction in smoke intake of at least 50% at 6 months and the main secondary outcome was sustained validated abstinence at 6 months. Drop-outs were included as 'non-reducers'. FINDINGS: Validated smoking reduction (including cessation) was achieved by 26.5 versus 6.0% of participants in the EC and NRT study arms, respectively [relative risk (RR) = 4.4, P = 0.005, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.6-12.4]. Sustained validated abstinence rates at 6 months were 19.1 versus 3.0% (RR = 6.4, P = 0.01, 95% CI = 1.5-27.3). Product use was high and equal in both study arms initially, but at 6 months allocated product use was 47% in the EC arm versus 10% in the NRT arm (χ2(1)  = 22.0, P < 0.001), respectively. Adverse events were minor and infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: In smokers unable to quit using conventional methods, e-cigarettes were more effective than nicotine replacement therapy in facilitating validated long-term smoking reduction and smoking cessation when limited other support was provided.

Acceleration of cervical cancer diagnosis with human papillomavirus testing below age 30: Observational study.

Several international cervical screening guidelines advise against using high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing in women younger than 30. The rationale for this in young women, lies in the potential for additional detection of both low-grade and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) leading to unnecessary treatments without reducing the burden of cervical cancer. We studied 56 544 women screened at 24 to 29 with HR-HPV testing and 116 858 screened with liquid-based cytology (LBC) in the English HPV screening pilot. They were compared to 528 460 women screened at the age of 30 to 49. We studied the detection of cervical cancer and CIN2/3 across two consecutive screening rounds 3 years apart. At 24 to 29, a positive HR-HPV test detected more cases of cervical cancer in the prevalence round than did a positive LBC test (1.36/1000 screened vs 0.82/1000, ORadj : 1.61, 95% CI: 1.18-2.19). In women with a negative HR-HPV test, cervical cancer was diagnosed before or at the incidence round in 0.07/1000. After a negative LBC test, cancer detection reached 0.47/1000 and 40% of these cases were diagnosed at FIGO stage IB+. HR-HPV testing increased the detection of CIN2/3 diagnoses in two consecutive rounds combined by 30% (71.9/1000 vs 55.2/1000). The patterns of detection of cervical cancer and CIN2/3 were almost identical at older ages. These data support using HR-HPV testing for screening of women younger than 30, which not only accelerates the diagnosis of cervical cancer but leads to a similar relative increase in CIN2/3 diagnosis to that found in women aged 30 to 49.

Age-specific outcomes from the first round of HPV screening in unvaccinated women: Observational study from the English cervical screening pilot.

OBJECTIVE: To report detailed age-specific outcomes from the first round of an English pilot studying the implementation of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing in primary cervical screening. DESIGN: Observational study with screening in 2013-2016, followed by two early recalls and/or colposcopy until the end of 2019. SETTING: Six NHS laboratory sites. POPULATION: A total of 1 341 584 women undergoing screening with HR-HPV testing or liquid-based cytology (LBC). METHODS: Early recall tests and colposcopies were recommended, depending on the nature of the screening-detected abnormality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We reported standard screening process indicators, e.g. proportions with an abnormality, including high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) or cancer, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of colposcopy for CIN2+, by screening test and age group. RESULTS: Among unvaccinated women screened with HR-HPV testing at age 24-29 years, 26.9% had a positive test and 10.4% were directly referred to colposcopy following cytology triage, with a PPV for CIN2+ of 47%. At 50-64 years of age, these proportions were much lower: 5.3%, 1.2% and 27%, respectively. The proportions of women testing positive for HR-HPV without cytological abnormalities, whose early recall HR-HPV tests returned negative results, were similar across the age spans: 54% at 24-29 years and 55% at 50-64 years. Two-thirds of infections at any age were linked to non-16/18 genotypes. Among women with CIN2, CIN3 or cervical cancer, however, the proportion of non-16/18 infections increased with age. As expected, the detection of abnormalities was lower following screening with LBC. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a reliable reference for future epidemiological studies, including those concerning the effectiveness of HPV vaccination. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Data from the English pilot study provide a comprehensive overview of abnormalities detected through HPV screening.

Impact of Barrett oesophagus diagnoses and endoscopies on oesophageal cancer survival in the UK: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance for Barrett oesophagus (BE), but the value of surveillance is still debated. Using a combination of primary care, secondary care and cancer registry datasets, we examined the impact of a prior BE diagnosis, clinical and risk factors on survival from oesophageal cancer and adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients aged 50 and above diagnosed with malignant oesophageal cancer between 1993 and 2014 using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). All prior BE diagnoses and endoscopies were identified from CPRD and Hospital Episode Statistics. Histology information was obtained from linked cancer registry data. We used flexible parametric models to estimate excess hazard ratios (EHRs) for relative survival. We simulated the potential impact of lead-time by adding random lead-times from a variety of distributions to all those with prior BE. RESULTS: Among our oesophageal cancer (n = 7503) and adenocarcinoma (n = 1476) cohorts only small percentages, 3.4% and 5.3%, respectively, had a prior BE diagnosis. Two-year relative survival was better among patients with BE: 48.0% (95% CI 41.9-54.9) compared to 25.2% (24.3-26.2) without. Patients with BE had a better prognosis (EHR = 0.53, 0.41-0.68). Survival was higher even if patients with BE had fewer than two endoscopies (50.0%; 43.6-57.3). A survival benefit was still observed after lead-time adjustment, with a 20% absolute difference in 2-year survival using a 5 year mean sojourn time. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a prior BE diagnosis had a survival advantage. This was not fully explained by surveillance endoscopies.

The experience of tobacco withdrawal symptoms among current smokers and ex-smokers in the general population: Findings from nationwide China Health Literacy Survey during 2018-19.

Objective: To clarify the extent to which smokers in the general population experience tobacco withdrawal symptoms and whether such experience differs in those who continue to smoke and those who stopped smoking. Methods: We included relevant questions in the nationally-representative China Health Literacy Survey (CHLS) conducted in 2018-2019. Among 87,028 participants, there were 22,115 ever-smokers aged 20-69 years who provided information on their smoking history and their experience of tobacco withdrawal symptoms. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to explore the association between withdrawal symptoms and other variables. Results: Among ever-smokers, there were 19,643 (88.8%) current smokers and 2,472 (11.2%) ex-smokers. Among current smokers, 61.3% reported having tried to quit smoking in the past. Overall, 61.1% of current smokers reported experiencing withdrawal symptoms: 69.9% of those who tried to quit smoking in the past and 47.5% of those who did not. A lower proportion of ex-smokers experienced withdrawal symptoms (46.3%) and the difference remained significant after controlling for demographic characteristics (OR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.62-1.93, P < 0.001). The most commonly reported withdrawal symptoms in both current smokers and ex-smokers were craving, restlessness and anxiety. In the multivariable-adjusted analyses, those who experienced withdrawal symptoms when they tried to quit smoking (OR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.86-2.27) were less likely to successfully quit. Conclusions: The clinical picture of the tobacco withdrawal syndrome is the same in current smokers and in ex-smokers, but ex-smokers are less likely to have experienced it. The experience of discomfort when unable to smoke is common and seems likely to be a major factor contributing to maintaining smoking behavior not just among individuals seeking help with quitting smoking, but among smokers generally.

A randomised controlled trial of the 5:2 diet.

OBJECTIVE: The 5:2 diet is a popular intermittent energy restriction method of weight management that awaits further evaluation. We compared the effects of one-off 5:2 instructions with the effects of one-off standard multicomponent weight-management advice; and also examined whether additional behavioural support enhances 5:2 adherence and efficacy compared to one-off instructions. METHODS: Three hundred adults with obesity were randomised to receive a Standard Brief Advice (SBA) covering diet and physical activity (N = 100); 5:2 self-help instructions (5:2SH) (N = 100); or 5:2SH plus six once-weekly group support sessions (N = 100). Participants were followed up for one year. RESULTS: Adherence to 5:2SH was initially high (74% at 6 weeks), but it declined over time (31% at 6 months and 22% at one year). 5:2SH and SBA achieved similar weight-loss at six months (-1.8kg (SD = 3.5) vs -1.7kg (SD = 4.4); b = 0.23, 95%CI:-0.79-1.27, p = 0.7) and at one year (-1.9kg (SD = 4.9) vs -1.8kg (SD = 5.7), b = 0.20, 95%CI:-1.21-1.60, p = 0.79), with 18% vs 15% participants losing ≥5% of their body weight with 5:2SH and SBA, respectively at one year (RR = 0.83, 95%CI:0.44-1.54, p = 0.55). Both interventions received positive ratings, but 5:2SH ratings were significantly higher. 5:2SH had no negative effect on fat and fiber intake and physical activity compared to SBA. Compared to 5:2SH, 5:2G generated a greater weight loss at 6 weeks (-2.3kg vs -1.5kg; b = 0.74, 95%CI:1.37-0.11, p = 0.02), but by one year, the difference was no longer significant (-2.6kg vs -1.9kg, p = 0.37; ≥5% body weight loss 28% vs 18%, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Simple 5:2 advice and multicomponent weight management advice generated similar modest results. The 5:2 diet did not undermine other health behaviours, and it received more favourable ratings. Adding initial group support enhanced 5:2 adherence and effects, but the impact diminished over time. Health professionals who provide brief weight management advice may consider including the 5:2 advice as an option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79408248).