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

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of youth nicotine vaping has increased, heightening concerns around negative health effects. This study aimed to compare self-reported respiratory symptoms among youth by vaping behaviours. METHODS: Participants (n = 39,214) aged 16-19 from the 2020 and 2021 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC) Youth Tobacco and Vaping Surveys (Canada, England, US). Weighted multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between reporting any of five respiratory symptoms in the past week (shortness of breath, wheezing, chest pain, phlegm, cough) and: past 30-day smoking and/or vaping; lifetime/current vaping. Among past-30-day vapers (n = 4644), we assessed associations between symptoms and vaping frequency, use of nicotine salts, usual flavour and device type(s). RESULTS: Overall, 27.8% reported experiencing any of the five respiratory symptoms. Compared with youth who had only vaped, those who had only smoked had similar odds of symptoms [adjusted odds ratio, OR (95% confidence interval, CI): 0.97 (0.85-1.10)], those who both smoked and vaped had higher odds [1.26 (1.12-1.42)], and those who had done neither, lower odds [0.67 (0.61-0.72)]. Compared with those who had never vaped, past use, experimentation and current regular or occasional use were all associated with higher odds. Reporting usually using nicotine salts was associated with higher odds of symptoms [1.43 (1.22-1.68)] than non-salt but was often uncertain. Compared with tobacco flavour (including with menthol), menthol/mint and sweets flavours were associated with similar odds; fruit [1.44 (1.07-1.93)], multiple [1.76 (1.30-2.39)] and 'other' [2.14 (1.45-3.16)] flavours with higher odds. All device types were associated with similar odds. CONCLUSIONS: Among youth, vaping was associated with increased reporting of past-week respiratory symptoms. Among those who vaped, some flavour types and potentially nicotine salts were associated with respiratory symptoms.

Support Provided by Stop-Smoking Practitioners to Co-users of Tobacco and Cannabis: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Co-use of tobacco and cannabis is highly prevalent among cannabis users and is associated with poorer tobacco cessation outcomes. This study explored the barriers and enablers influencing stop-smoking practitioners' ability to provide optimal support to co-users. AIMS AND METHODS: Online semi-structured interviews were audio recorded. Interviewees (n = 20) were UK-based certified stop-smoking practitioners. An interview schedule informed by the "capability", "opportunity", "motivation" (COM-B) model was designed to explore participants' perceived barriers and enablers in better supporting co-users to achieve abstinence of both substances or tobacco harm reduction. The transcripts were analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Capability: Practitioners' lack of knowledge and skills undermines their delivery of smoking cessation interventions to co-users. Interestingly, when cannabis is used for medicinal reasons, practitioners feel unable to provide adequate support. Opportunity: Service recording systems play an important role in screening for co-use and supporting co-users. When responding to clients' specific needs and practitioners' uncertainties, a positive therapeutic relationship and a support network of peers and other healthcare professionals are needed. Motivation: supporting co-users is generally perceived as part of practitioners' roles but there are concerns that co-users are less likely to successfully stop smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners are willing to support co-users, but their lack of knowledge and access to an appropriate recording system are barriers to doing so. Having a supportive team and a positive therapeutic relationship is perceived as important. Identified barriers can be mostly addressed with further training to improve tobacco cessation outcomes for co-users.

Exposure to Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines Among People Who Vape, Smoke, or do Neither: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking exposes people to high levels of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs), which include potent carcinogens. We systematically reviewed TSNA exposure between people smoking, vaping, and doing neither. AIMS AND METHODS: Databases were searched between August 2017-March 2022, using vaping-related terms. Peer-reviewed articles reporting TSNA metabolites (NNAL, NNN, NAB, and NAT) levels in bio-samples among adults exclusively vaping, exclusively smoking, or doing neither were included. Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 12 781 identified studies, 22 were included. TSNA levels fell substantially when people who smoke switched to vaping in longitudinal studies and were lower among people who vaped compared to smoked in cross-sectional studies. Levels of TSNAs were similar when comparing people who switched from smoking to vaping, to those who switched to no use of nicotine products, in longitudinal studies. Levels were higher among people who vaped compared to people who neither vaped nor smoked in cross-sectional studies.When comparing people who vaped to smoked: pooled urinary NNAL was 79% lower across three randomized controlled trials and 96% lower across three cross-sectional studies; pooled NAB was 87% lower and NAT 94% lower in two cross-sectional studies. When comparing people who neither vaped nor smoked to people who vaped, pooled urinary NNAL was 80%, NAB 26%, and NAT 27% lower in two cross-sectional studies. Other longitudinal data, and NNN levels could not be pooled. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to all TSNAs was lower among people who vaped compared to people who smoked. Levels were higher among people who vaped compared to people who neither vaped nor smoked. IMPLICATIONS: As well as TSNAs, there are many other toxicant exposures from smoking and vaping that can increase the risk of disease. However, it is likely that the reduced exposure to TSNAs from vaping relative to smoking reduces the risk to health of those who use vaping products to quit smoking. Future high-quality research, with robust definitions of exclusive vaping and smoking, and accounting for TSNAs half-lives, is needed to fully assess exposure to TSNAs among people who vape.

Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking during pregnancy is harmful to maternal and child health. Vaping is used for smoking cessation but evidence on health effects during pregnancy is scarce. We conducted a systematic review of health outcomes of vaping during pregnancy. METHODS: We searched six databases for maternal/fetal/infant outcomes and vaping, including quantitative, English language, human studies of vaping during pregnancy, to November 10th, 2023. We assessed study quality with the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. We focused on comparisons of exclusive-vaping with non-use of nicotine and tobacco products and with smoking. Presentation is narrative as the studies were of insufficient quality to conduct meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 26 studies, with 765,527 women, with one randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing vaping and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation, 23 cohort studies and two case-control studies. While the RCT met 4/5 quality criteria, the quality of the cohort studies and case-control studies was poor; none adequately assessed exposure to smoking and vaping. For studies comparing exclusive-vaping with 'non-use', more reported no increased risk for vaping (three studies) than reported increased risk for maternal pregnancy/postpartum outcomes (one study) and for fetal and infant outcomes (20 studies no increased risk, four increased risk), except for birth-weight and neurological outcomes where two studies each observed increased and no increased risk. When the RCT compared non-users with those not smoking but vaping or using NRT, irrespective of randomisation, they reported no evidence of risk for vaping/NRT. For studies comparing exclusive-vaping and exclusive-smoking, most studies provided evidence for a comparable risk for different outcomes. One maternal biomarker study revealed a lower risk for vaping. For small-for-gestational-age/mean-birth-centile equal numbers of studies found lower risk for vaping than for smoking as found similar risk for the two groups (two each). CONCLUSIONS: While more studies found no evidence of increased risk of exclusive-vaping compared with non-use and evidence of comparable risk for exclusive-vaping and exclusive-smoking, the quality of the evidence limits conclusions. Without adequate assessment of exposure to vaping and smoking, findings cannot be attributed to behaviour as many who vape will have smoked and many who vape may do so at low levels. STUDY REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/rfx4q/ .

Brief interventions for smoking and alcohol associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a population survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 health care delivery underwent considerable changes. It is unclear how this may have affected the delivery of Brief Interventions (BIs) for smoking and alcohol. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol in primary care in England and whether certain priority groups (e.g., less advantaged socioeconomic positions, or a history of a mental health condition) were differentially affected. METHODS: We used nationally representative data from a monthly cross-sectional survey in England between 03/2014 and 06/2022. Monthly trends in the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol were examined using generalised additive models among adults who smoked in the past-year (weighted N = 31,390) and those using alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels (AUDIT score 38, weighted N = 22,386), respectively. Interactions were tested between social grade and the change in slope after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and results reported stratified by social grade. Further logistic regression models assessed whether changes in the of receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol, respectively, from 12/2016 to 01/2017 and 10/2020 to 06/2022 (or 03/2022 in the case of BIs for alcohol), depended on history of a mental health condition. RESULTS: The receipt of smoking BIs declined from an average prevalence of 31.8% (95%CI 29.4-35.0) pre-March 2020 to 24.4% (95%CI 23.5-25.4) post-March 2020. The best-fitting model found that after March 2020 there was a 12-month decline before stabilising by June 2022 in social grade ABC1 at a lower level (~ 20%) and rebounding among social grade C2DE (~ 27%). Receipt of BIs for alcohol was low (overall: 4.1%, 95%CI 3.9-4.4) and the prevalence was similar pre- and post-March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of BIs for smoking declined following March 2020 but rebounded among priority socioeconomic groups of people who smoked. BIs for alcohol among those who use alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels were low and there was no appreciable change over time. Maintaining higher BI delivery among socioeconomic and mental health priority groups of smokers and increasing and higher risk alcohol users is important to support reductions in smoking and alcohol related inequalities.

Noticing education campaigns or public health messages about vaping among youth in the United States, Canada and England from 2018 to 2022.

Public health campaigns have the potential to correct vaping misperceptions. However, campaigns highlighting vaping harms to youth may increase misperceptions that vaping is equally/more harmful than smoking. Vaping campaigns have been implemented in the United States and Canada since 2018 and in England since 2017 but with differing focus: youth vaping prevention (United States/Canada) and smoking cessation (England). We therefore examined country differences and trends in noticing vaping campaigns among youth and, using 2022 data only, perceived valence of campaigns and associations with harm perceptions. Seven repeated cross-sectional surveys of 16-19 year-olds in United States, Canada and England (2018-2022, n = 92 339). Over half of youth reported noticing vaping campaigns, and noticing increased from August 2018 to February 2020 (United States: 55.2% to 74.6%, AOR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.18-1.24; Canada: 52.6% to 64.5%, AOR = 1.13, 1.11-1.16; England: 48.0% to 53.0%, AOR = 1.05, 1.02-1.08) before decreasing (Canada) or plateauing (England/United States) to August 2022. Increases were most pronounced in the United States, then Canada. Noticing was most common on websites/social media, school and television/radio. In 2022 only, most campaigns were perceived to negatively portray vaping and this was associated with accurately perceiving vaping as less harmful than smoking among youth who exclusively vaped (AOR = 1.46, 1.09-1.97). Consistent with implementation of youth vaping prevention campaigns in the United States and Canada, most youth reported noticing vaping campaigns/messages, and most were perceived to negatively portray vaping.

Who would be affected by a ban on disposable vapes? A population study in Great Britain.

OBJECTIVES: The UK government is consulting on banning disposable e-cigarettes. This study aimed to describe trends in disposable e-cigarette use among adults in Great Britain since 2021 and establish who would currently be affected by a ban on disposables. STUDY DESIGN: Nationally-representative monthly cross-sectional survey. METHODS: We analysed data from 69,973 adults surveyed between January 2021 and August 2023. We estimated monthly time trends in the weighted prevalence of current disposable e-cigarette use among adults and by sociodemographic characteristics and smoking status. RESULTS: From January 2021 to August 2023, the prevalence of disposable e-cigarette use grew from 0.1 % to 4.9 %. This rise was observed across all population subgroups but was most pronounced among younger adults (e.g. reaching 15.9 % of 18-year-olds compared with 1.3 % of 65-year-olds), those who currently smoke (16.3 %), and those who stopped smoking in the past year (18.2 %). Use among never smokers remained relatively rare (1.5 %), except among 18- to 24-year-olds (7.1 %). Use was significantly higher in England than Wales or Scotland (5.3 % vs. 2.0 % and 2.8 %) and among less (vs. more) advantaged social grades (6.1 % vs. 4.0 %), those with (vs. without) children (6.4 % vs. 4.4 %), and those with (vs. without) a history of mental health conditions (9.3 % vs. 3.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: A ban on disposable e-cigarettes would currently affect one in 20 adults in Great Britain (approximately 2.6 million people). The proportion who would be affected would be greatest among young people, including the 316,000 18-24 year-olds who currently use disposables but who have never regularly smoked tobacco, which may discourage uptake of vaping in this group. However, a ban would also affect 1.2 million people who currently smoke and a further 744,000 who previously smoked. It would also have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups that have higher rates of smoking and typically find it harder to quit.

Associations between smoking and vaping prevalence, product use characteristics, and mental health diagnoses in Great Britain: a population survey.

BACKGROUND: Rates of diseases and death from tobacco smoking are substantially higher among those with a mental health condition (MHC). Vaping can help some people quit smoking, but little is known about vaping among people with MHCs or psychological distress. We assessed the prevalence and characteristics (heaviness, product type) of smoking and/or vaping among those with and without a history of single or multiple MHC diagnoses and with no, moderate or serious psychological distress. METHODS: Data from 27,437 adults in Great Britain surveyed between 2020 and 2022. Multinomial regressions analysed associations between smoking, vaping and dual use prevalence, smoking/vaping characteristics and (a) history of a single or multiple MHC and (b) moderate or serious psychological distress, adjusted for age, gender, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Compared with people who had never smoked, those who currently smoked were more likely to report a history of a single (12.5% vs 15.0%, AOR=1.62, 95% CI=1.46-1.81, p<.001) or multiple MHCs (12.8% vs 29.3%, AOR=2.51, 95% CI=2.28-2.75, p<.001). Compared with non-vapers, current vapers were more likely to report a history of a single (13.5% vs 15.5%, AOR=1.28, 95% CI=1.11-1.48, p<.001) or multiple MHCs (15.5% vs 33.4%, AOR=1.66, 95% CI=1.47-1.87, p<.001). Dual users were more likely to report a history of multiple MHCs (36.8%), but not a single MHC than exclusive smokers (27.2%) and exclusive vapers (30.4%) (all p<.05). Similar associations were reported for those with moderate or serious psychological distress. Smoking roll-your-own cigarettes and smoking more heavily, were associated with a history of single or multiple MHCs. There were no associations between vaping characteristics and a history of MHCs. Frequency of vaping, device type and nicotine concentration differed by psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking, vaping and dual use were substantially higher among those with a history of MHC, especially multiple MHC, and experiencing past month distress than those not having a history of MHC or experiencing past month distress respectively. Analysis used descriptive epidemiology and causation cannot be determined.

How is nicotine vaping product (e-cigarette) use monitored in primary care electronic health records in the United Kingdom? An exploratory analysis of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) could identify long-term health effects of nicotine vaping. We characterised the extent to which vaping is recorded in primary care EHRs in the UK, on a population level. METHODS: We performed descriptive analysis of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), primary care electronic health records of 25% of the UK population (~ 16 million patients). Patients aged ≥ 18 years whose vaping status was recorded using medical codes between 2006 and 2022 were identified. We reported the frequency of vaping codes; their distribution by patient age, gender, and ethnicity; trends in vaping recording over time (including interrupted time series analyses); and transitions in patient smoking status. RESULTS: Seven medical codes indicated current or former vaping, from 150,114 patients. When their vaping status was first recorded, mean patient age was 50.2 years (standard deviation: 15.0), 52.4% were female, and 82.1% were White. Of those recorded as currently vaping, almost all (98.9%) had records of their prior smoking status: 55.0% had been smoking, 38.3% had stopped smoking, 5.6% had never smoked. Of those who were smoking prior to being recorded as vaping, more than a year after the vaping record, over a third (34.2%) were still smoking, under a quarter (23.7%) quit smoking, 1.7% received a 'never smoked' status, and there was no smoking status for 40.4%. The 'e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury' (EVALI) outbreak was significantly associated with a declining trend in new records of current vaping between September 2019 and March 2020; and an immediate significant increase in new records of former vaping, followed by a declining trend. CONCLUSIONS: Few patients are being asked about vaping. Most who vape had smoked, and many quit smoking after starting vaping. To enable electronic health records to provide stronger evidence on health effects, we recommend improved completeness, accuracy and consistency.

Medium- and longer-term cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes in adults making a stop-smoking attempt: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and smoking cessation reduces excess risk. E-cigarettes are popular for smoking cessation but there is little evidence on their cardiovascular health effect. Our objective was to compare the medium- and longer-term cardiovascular effects in smokers attempting to quit smoking using e-cigarettes with or without nicotine or prescription nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). METHODS: This was a single-center, pragmatic three-arm randomized (1:1:1) controlled trial, which recruited adult smokers (≥ 10 cigarettes/day), who were willing to attempt to stop smoking with support (n = 248). Participants were randomized to receive behavioral support with either (a) e-cigarettes with 18 mg/ml nicotine, (b) e-cigarettes without nicotine, and (c) NRT. Flow-mediated dilation (%FMD) and peak cutaneous vascular conductance (CVCmax) responses to acetylcholine (ACh) and sodium nitroprusside (SNP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and other outcomes were recorded at baseline, 3, and 6 months after stopping smoking. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE). RESULTS: At 3- and 6-month follow-up, %FMD showed an improvement over baseline in all three groups (e.g., p < 0.0001 at 6 months). Similarly, ACh, SNP, and MAP improved significantly over baseline in all groups both at 3 and 6 months (e.g., ACh: p = 0.004, at 6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Smokers attempting to quit experienced positive cardiovascular impact after both a 3- and 6-month period. None of the groups (i.e., nicotine-containing and nicotine-free e-cigarettes or NRT) offered superior cardiovascular benefits to the others. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03061253 . Registered on 17 February 2017.

The Use of Tobacco Industry Vaping Products in the UK and Product Characteristics: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco industry (TI) companies have entered the UK e-cigarette ("vaping") market in recent years. However, their motives and ambitions are unclear. This study explored how popular TI vaping products are and who uses them, and how they differ from independent products. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a longitudinal web-based survey of smokers, ex-smokers, and vapers (n = 3883) in the UK in 2019. The main study sample consisted of daily and nondaily vapers, who were current or ex-cigarette smokers, and had stated the brand of their preferred e-cigarette device (n = 1202). Proportions using TI and independent brands were calculated and regression analysis assessed associations with sociodemographic and smoking/vaping characteristics between vapers of TI and independent products. Chi-square tests were used to analyze differences between TI and independent products. RESULTS: Overall, 53.4% used TI products. A university education (67.6%; adjOR = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.140-2.088), nondaily vaping (68.2%; adjOR = 1.39; CI, 1.029-1.880), and cigarette dependence (moderate, strong and very strong urges to smoke) were associated with using TI vaping brands. TI products used were less likely to be refillable ("open") than independent brands (60.9% vs. 18.3%, chi-square = 228.98, p < .001), more likely to use nicotine salts (16.7% vs. 8.6%, chi-square = 25.04, p < .001) and tobacco flavors (23.8% vs. 17.9%, chi-square = 12.65, p < .001). CONCLUSION: TI vaping products were popular in the UK, associations with product and user characteristics suggest that TI products may be less conducive to smoking cessation, although the findings were not always consistent. IMPLICATIONS: Consequences of regulations need to be carefully considered to ensure that independent producers are not more negatively impacted than tobacco industry producers, and to avoid reducing utility of products for smoking cessation.

The Effect of Tobacco Control Mass Media Campaigns on Smoking-Related Behavior Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco control mass media campaigns (MMCs) can be effective generally, but little is known about their effects among people with mental illness. The objectives of this study were to systematically review: (1) Whether tobacco control MMCs affect smoking-related outcomes among people with mental illness. (2) Cost-effectiveness. AIMS AND METHODS: Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library (searched March 2021), reference lists of included articles and relevant systematic reviews. Study eligibility criteria: Population: Adults with mental illness and experience of smoking tobacco and/or using other nicotine-containing products. Intervention/exposure: Tobacco control MMC messages. Comparator: No exposure, other tobacco control intervention(s), no comparator. Primary outcome: Changes in quitting behaviors. Study design: All primary research. Quantitative data were appraised using the EPHPP tool, qualitative data using CASP's Studies Checklist. Data were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, seven were at high risk of bias. There was inconclusive evidence of the effect of MMCs on quit attempts and intentions to quit among people with mental illness. Increasing advertisement exposure did not increase quit attempts or intentions to quit among those with mental illness, however, increased exposure to an advertisement that addressed smoking and mental health did. None of the studies assessed cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Findings should be interpreted with caution as data are limited and of low or moderate quality. There is evidence to suggest that tobacco control MMCs have limited impact on those with mental illness, although campaigns that are specific to smoking and mental health may be effective. IMPLICATIONS: There is a paucity of good-quality evidence of the effect of tobacco control MMC messages among people with mental illness. Careful consideration should be given to the design of future studies that evaluate MMCs in order to minimize the risk of bias, establish causality, and ensure the findings reflect real-world implementation. Further research should examine the need for MMC messages that address mental health.

Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence.

BACKGROUND: Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e-cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers.  RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time-series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population-level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log-transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta-analysis where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time-series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow-up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes.  There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or continue smoking cigarettes, limited by imprecision and risk of bias (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 1713 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether risk of serious adverse events differed between groups due to very serious imprecision and risk of bias (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1472 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence for lower NNAL and COHb at follow-up in heated tobacco than cigarette smoking groups, limited by risk of bias (NNAL: LMD -0.81, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.55; I2 = 92%; 10 studies, 1959 participants; COHb: LMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.52; I2 = 96%; 9 studies, 1807 participants). Evidence for additional biomarkers of exposure are reported in the main body of the review. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events in smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or attempt abstinence from all tobacco, limited by risk of bias and imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 237 participants). Five studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred in either group (533 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that urine concentrations of NNAL at follow-up were higher in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group (LMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 382 participants). In addition, there was very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, for higher COHb in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group for intention-to-treat analyses (LMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.31; 3 studies, 212 participants), but lower COHb in per-protocol analyses (LMD -0.32, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.39; 2 studies, 170 participants). Evidence concerning additional biomarkers is reported in the main body of the review. Data from two time-series studies showed that the rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated following the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan. This evidence was of very low-certainty as there was risk of bias, including possible confounding, and cigarette sales are an indirect measure of smoking prevalence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No studies reported on cigarette smoking cessation, so the effectiveness of heated tobacco for this purpose remains uncertain. There was insufficient evidence for differences in risk of adverse or serious adverse events between people randomised to switch to heated tobacco, smoke cigarettes, or attempt tobacco abstinence in the short-term. There was moderate-certainty evidence that heated tobacco users have lower exposure to toxicants/carcinogens than cigarette smokers and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence of higher exposure than those attempting abstinence from  all tobacco. Independently funded research on the effectiveness and safety of HTPs is needed.  The rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated after the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan but, as data were observational, it is possible other factors caused these changes. Moreover, falls in cigarette sales may not translate to declining smoking prevalence, and changes in Japan may not generalise elsewhere. To clarify the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking prevalence, there is a need for time-series studies that examine this association.

Mental Health Symptoms and Associations with Tobacco Smoking, Dependence, Motivation, and Attempts to Quit: Findings from a Population Survey in Germany (DEBRA Study).

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to estimate prevalence rates of mental health symptoms (anxiety, depression, and overall psychological distress) by tobacco smoking status, and associations between such symptoms and the level of dependence, motivation, and attempts to quit smoking in the German population. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of data from six waves of a nationally representative household survey collected in 2018/19 (N = 11,937 respondents aged ≥18). Mental health symptoms were assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-4. Associations with smoking status, dependence, motivation to quit, and ≥1 past-year quit attempt (yes/no) were analysed with adjusted regression models among the total group, and among subgroups of current (n = 3,248) and past-year smokers (quit ≤12 months ago, n = 3,357). RESULTS: Weighted prevalence rates of mental health symptoms among current, former, and never smokers were: 4.1%, 2.4%, 2.5% (anxiety), 5.4%, 4.7%, 4.0% (depression), and 3.1%, 2.5%, 2.4% (psychological distress). Current versus never smokers were more likely to report symptoms of anxiety and depression. Smokers with higher versus lower levels of dependence were more likely to report higher levels of all three mental health symptoms. Higher versus lower levels of overall psychological distress were associated with a higher motivation to quit smoking and, among past-year smokers, with higher odds of reporting a past-year quit attempt. CONCLUSIONS: We found various relevant associations between mental health symptoms and smoking behaviour. Healthcare professionals need to be informed about these associations and trained to effectively support this vulnerable group in translating their motivation into abstinence.

Vaping in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking in pregnancy increases the risk of negative health outcomes. Vaping can be effective for smoking cessation in nonpregnant populations. We conducted a systematic review of vaping in pregnancy, covering prevalence, patterns of use, reasons for use, smoking cessation, and health effects. METHODS: Five academic databases were searched on 17 February 2020. Studies reporting prevalence, patterns, reasons, cessation, or health effects of vaping in pregnancy were included; animal and in vitro studies were excluded. A narrative review was used, with risk of bias assessed using Hoy and colleague's tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and the Consolidated Criteria for reporting Qualitative Research. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were identified: 11 survey, 7 qualitative, 3 cohort, and 2 secondary analyses of randomized clinical trials. Prevalence of vaping in pregnancy (four studies) was between 1.2% and 7.0% overall, and <1% among nonsmokers. Twelve studies reported patterns of use, but findings were inconsistent. Twelve of 14 studies asking why pregnant women vaped reported that most vaped to reduce or quit smoking. Mixed findings were reported from six studies on smoking cessation. Of three studies with health-related outcomes, two were underpowered and one reported similar birthweights for babies born to nonsmokers and women who vaped, with both higher (p < .0001) than the birthweight of babies born to smokers. CONCLUSIONS: There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about prevalence, patterns, and effects of vaping in pregnancy on smoking cessation. The limited literature suggests that vaping in pregnancy has little or no effect on birthweight. IMPLICATIONS: Smoking causes many negative health outcomes for pregnant women and to babies born to people who smoke. There remains a paucity of research on the effects of vaping in pregnancy. There is, however, the potential for vaping products to reduce the negative health outcomes associated with smoking. More research is needed to develop an evidence base in this area.

Harm Perceptions of E-cigarettes Among Smokers With and Without Mental Health Conditions in England: A Cross-Sectional Population Survey.

INTRODUCTION: E-cigarettes (ECs) may benefit smokers with mental health conditions who are more likely to smoke, and smoke more heavily, than those without mental health conditions. This could be undermined if harm misperceptions in this group are high as is the case in the general population. This study aimed to assess EC harm perceptions relative to cigarettes as a function of mental health status and a variety of characteristics. METHODS: Data were collected from 6531 current smokers in 2016/2017 in household surveys of representative samples of adults. The associations of mental health status (self-reported mental health condition and past year treatment), smoking and EC use characteristics, and characteristics relating to use of potential information sources with harm perceptions of ECs relative to cigarettes (measured by correct response "less harmful" vs. wrong responses "more harmful," "equally harmful," "don't know") were analyzed with logistic regression. RESULTS: A similar proportion of smokers without mental health conditions (61.5%, 95% CI 60.1-62.9) and with mental health conditions (both with [61.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 58.7-63.8] and without past year treatment [61.5%, 95% CI 58.1-64.7]) held inaccurate EC harm perceptions (all P > 0.05). Being female, nonwhite, aged 25-34 compared with 16-24, from lower social grades (C2, D, and E), not having post-16 qualifications, no EC experience, a daily smoker, unmotivated to quit <1 month, non-internet user and non-broadsheet reader were all associated with more inaccurate harm perceptions (all p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of smokers in England have inaccurate harm perceptions of ECs regardless of mental health status. IMPLICATIONS: This study is the first to use a nationally representative sample in order to investigate whether smokers with and without mental health conditions differ with regard to harm perceptions of ECs. Findings show that the majority of smokers in England hold inaccurate harm perceptions of ECs, and this does not differ as a function of mental health status. A number of characteristics associated with disadvantaged groups were significantly associated with inaccurate harm perceptions. These findings highlight the need to improve awareness and understanding among disadvantaged groups regarding the relative harms of ECs compared with tobacco.

Mental health and smoking cessation-a population survey in England.

BACKGROUND: To reduce inequalities between individuals with and without mental health problems, a better understanding is required of triggers and success of quit attempts among the third of smokers with mental health problems. The aim was to assess whether there are differences by mental health status in (i) triggers for quit attempts, (ii) use of evidence-based support (iii) and quit success. METHODS: Monthly cross-sectional household surveys of representative samples of the adult population in England. In 2016/2017, 40,831 adults were surveyed; 1956 who had attempted to stop smoking cigarettes in the past year were included. Logistic regressions assessed associations between mental health (ever diagnosis, past-year treatment, past-month distress), triggers, support used and quit success, adjusting for sociodemographic and smoking characteristics. RESULTS: Concern about future health, current health problems and expense of smoking were the most common triggers overall. For respondents with an ever diagnosis, past-year treatment or serious past-month distress, quit attempts were more frequently triggered by current health problems. Non-evidence-based support and e-cigarettes were used most often, and this did not differ by mental health status. Respondents with an ever diagnosis and moderate or serious distress were less likely to have used non-prescription nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Respondents with past-year treatment or serious distress were more likely to have used prescription medication/behavioural support. Quit success did not differ by mental health status. Compared with non-evidence-based support, non-prescription NRT conferred no benefit. There was some evidence that prescription medication/behavioural support was beneficial (depending on outcome and adjustment, ORs ranged from 1.46, 95% CI 0.92-2.31, to 1.69, 1.01-2.86). E-cigarettes were associated with higher success rates after adjustment for different indicators of mental health (ORs ranged from 2.21, 1.64-2.98, to 2.25, 1.59-3.18). CONCLUSIONS: Smokers with mental health problems were more likely to have attempted to quit because of health problems and were more likely to have used gold standard support (medication and behavioural support) than other smokers. E-cigarettes were strongly associated with increased success and were used similarly by those with and without mental health problems, indicating that improved uptake of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation among smokers with mental health problems could help address inequalities.

Awareness of Changes in E-cigarette Regulations and Behavior Before and After Implementation: A Longitudinal Survey of Smokers, Ex-smokers, and Vapers in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: In line with the European Union's Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), new regulations for electronic cigarettes implemented in the United Kingdom between May 2016 and May 2017 included limiting refills to 10 mL, tank and cartridge sizes to 2 mL, and nicotine concentrations to 20 mg/mL. AIMS: To investigate the (1) awareness of new regulations, (2) product use before and after implementation, and (3) association between use of compliant products and subsequent smoking. METHODS: A UK online longitudinal survey of smokers, ex-smokers, and vapers was conducted between May and June 2016 (wave 4) and September 2017 (wave 5).The following methods were used: (1) to assess awareness of changes, proportions were calculated by smoking and vaping status (n = 1606). (2) Comparison of refill volume, tank and cartridge volumes, nicotine concentration at waves 4 and 5 (n = 199-388) was conducted. (3) Association was studied between number of TPD-compliant products used at wave 4 and smoking at wave 5, adjusted for wave 4 vaping status, age, gender, income, urges to smoke, and device type (n = 480). RESULTS: Awareness of regulations was highest for refill volume (10.1%; 37.4% among exclusive vapers) and nicotine concentration (9.5%; 27.3%). Higher proportions used TPD-compliant refill volumes (60.0%-73.7%, χ2(1) = 10.9, p = .001) and nicotine concentrations (89.2%-93.9%, χ2(1) = 7.41, p = .007) in wave 5 than wave 4, with little change for tank or cartridge volumes (77.1-75.5%, χ2(1) = 0.38, p = .540). The likelihood of smoking was similar for those using no or one TPD-compliant products as it was for those using two (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.47-2.59) or three (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.69-3.55). CONCLUSION: Several months after full implementation, awareness of new regulations was low and most vapers used TPD-compliant products. Use of compliant products was not associated with subsequent smoking. IMPLICATIONS: Using a longitudinal survey at the beginning and a few months after the end of the transition period for implementation of new regulation on electronic cigarettes, this is the first study to assess awareness of regulation and use of compliant products. After full implementation, awareness of changes was low overall (smokers, ex-smokers, and vapers combined) although higher among those who vaped. Nevertheless, most vapers (74%-94%) used products that were compliant with the new regulations and the use of products compliant with incoming regulations did not predict whether they were smoking cigarettes after implementation.

Mental health, smoking, harm reduction and quit attempts - a population survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco control strategies have engendered overall declines in smoking; however, a large gap remains between people with and without mental health problems, causing substantial health inequalities. Population-level information on barriers and opportunities for improvements is scarce. We aimed to assess mental health status of cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers ('past-year smokers') in England, and smoking and harm reduction behaviour and quit attempts by mental health status. METHODS: Data were collected from 5637 current and 434 recent ex-smokers in 2016/17 in household surveys of representative samples of adults. We calculated weighted prevalence of different indicators of mental health problem: a) ever diagnosis, b) none, moderate, serious past-month distress, c) past-year treatment. We compared weighted smoking status, cigarette type, dependence, motivation to stop smoking, cutting down, use of nicotine replacement therapy or e-cigarettes, short-term abstinence, and quit attempts according to mental health status. RESULTS: Among past-year smokers: 35.9% ever had a diagnosis; 24.3% had experienced moderate, an additional 9.7% serious, past-month distress; 21.9% had had past-year treatment. Those with an indication of a mental health problem were more highly dependent and more likely to smoke roll-your-own cigarettes but also more likely to be motivated to stop smoking, to cut down, use nicotine replacement therapy or e-cigarettes and to have attempted to quit in the past year. CONCLUSIONS: About a third of cigarette smokers in England have mental health problems. Interventions should address their increased dependence and leverage higher prevalence of harm reduction behaviours, motivation to stop and attempts to stop smoking.

Smokers who have not tried alternative nicotine products: a 2019 survey of adults in Great Britain.

AIMS: Switching from smoking to using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or heated tobacco products can reduce tobacco-related health risks. However, not all smokers in Great Britain have tried these products. This study aimed to identify and describe smokers who have never tried alternative nicotine products. METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional survey data of smokers (n = 1777) from a representative adult sample from Great Britain. The online survey was run in March 2019. The proportion of smokers who had never used alternative nicotine products was measured. A multivariate logistic regression assessed the association between never having used alternative nicotine products and sociodemographic and smoking characteristics and motivation to stop smoking. RESULTS: One in four smokers (27.8%, 95% CI 25.8-29.9%) had never tried NRT, e-cigarettes or heated tobacco products. These smokers were more commonly from Black and Minority than White ethnic groups (AOR = 1.55; 95% CI 1.02-2.31), were more likely to smoke up to 10 versus more cigarettes per day (AOR = 1.52; 95% CI 1.14-2.03) and to report low versus moderate or high motivation to stop smoking (AOR = 1.79; 95% CI 1.20-2.74). CONCLUSION: Light smokers, those unmotivated to stop and smokers from Black and Minority ethnic groups are less likely to have ever tried alternative nicotine products. Different approaches are needed to facilitate harm reduction and smoking cessation among these groups of smokers.