Association between Smoking Abstinence and Depression and Anxiety Symptoms After Hospital Discharge: The Helping HAND 4 Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Some people who stop smoking experience improved mood, but few studies have examined this relationship after hospitalization or accounted for concomitant substance use and psychological factors. We examined associations between smoking abstinence after a hospital discharge and change in depression and anxiety symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Helping HAND 4 smoking cessation trial, which enrolled people who used tobacco when admitted to three academic medical center general hospitals. Participants (n = 986) were categorized as continuously abstinent (CA) or not. We used linear and logistic regression to model continuous and binary measures of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-8] ≥/<10), and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment [GAD-7], ≥/<8) over 6 months, adjusting for baseline mood, psychological factors, and substance use. Binary outcomes were defined using established clinical thresholds to aid in the clinical interpretation of the results. RESULTS: Mean age was 52.3 years, 56.5% were female, and the baseline mean cigarettes/day was 16.2 (SD: 3.2). In the adjusted analyses, depression and anxiety scores improved more in CA than non-CA participants over 6 months (difference-in-improvement, 2.43 [95% CI: 1.50-3.36] for PHQ-8; 3.04 [95% CI: 2.16-3.93] for GAD-7). At 6 months, CA participants were more likely to have a PHQ-8 score <10 (aOR = 2.07 [95% CI: 1.36-3.16]) and a GAD-7 score <8 (aOR = 2.90 [95% CI: 1.91-4.39]). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who were CA, compared to those who were not, had fewer depression and anxiety symptoms at 6 months, and were twice as likely to score below the population screening thresholds for major depression and anxiety disorders. Clinicians should emphasize the association between continuous abstinence and improved mood symptoms after hospital discharge.

Prevalence and Trends in Cigarette Smoking With and Without Tobacco Use Disorder Among Adults in the United States: 2010-2021.

Objective: Few national estimates are available on the prevalence of tobacco use disorder (TUD) in the United States (US), and most trials exclusively assess daily smoking rather than TUD. We examined the prevalence and trends in cigarette smoking with vs without TUD among adults.Methods: Data came from the 2010-2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (n = 483,982), a cross sectional, US representative dataset. A TUD composite variable was created based on established definitions (eg, DSM-5 symptoms). Weighted prevalence of past 30-day cigarette smoking, daily smoking (30/30 days) and nondaily smoking (<30/30 days) with and without TUD, was calculated annually.Results: In 2021, the prevalence of past 30- day overall cigarette smoking was 17%; 11% reported daily cigarette smoking, whereas 6% reported nondaily cigarette smoking. Only 1% of the population reported daily smoking without TUD, whereas 10% reported daily smoking with TUD. Two percent of the population reported nondaily smoking without TUD, and 4% of the population reported nondaily smoking with TUD. Daily smoking with TUD and nondaily smoking with and without TUD decreased significantly from 2010 to 2021 (all P's < .001). US adults reporting TUD symptoms (vs not) were more likely to be older, identify as White, have lower income and less education, and have a substance use disorder.Conclusions: The prevalence of daily cigarette smoking with TUD was 10× higher than the prevalence of daily cigarette smoking without TUD. Twice as many US adults with nondaily smoking reported TUD than no TUD, illustrating that daily smoking is not necessary for TUD.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Changes in weight among individuals with psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage assigned to smoke very low nicotine content cigarettes.

Nicotine abstinence leads to weight gain, which could be an unintended consequence of a nicotine reduction policy. This secondary analysis used weekly assessments of weight and ratings of "increased appetite/hunger/weight gain" collected in three 12-week, randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of cigarettes differing in nicotine dose (15.8, 2.4, or 0.4 mg/g) among individuals with affective disorders, opioid use disorder (OUD), and socioeconomically disadvantaged women. Linear mixed models tested differences by dose and time. Analyses first collapsed across populations and then separated out individuals with OUD because biomarkers suggested they used substantially more noncombusted nicotine. Across populations, weight increased significantly over time, averaging 1.03 kg (p < .001), but did not vary by dose nor was there any interaction of dose/time. "Increased appetite/hunger/weight gain" ratings increased significantly as a function of dose, with differences between low and high doses (1.95 and 1.73, respectively, p = .01), but not by time nor any interaction. In the combined group of individuals with affective disorders and socioeconomically disadvantaged women, weight and "increased appetite/hunger/weight gain" ratings increased significantly by dose, with differences between low and high doses (1.43 vs. 0.73 kg, p = .003 and 2.00 vs. 1.76, p = .02, respectively). Among individuals with OUD, there were no significant effects of any kind on either outcome. Individuals with affective disorders and socioeconomically disadvantaged women gained weight and reported more subjective appetite/weight gain when given 0.4, but not 2.4 mg/g cigarettes, despite comparable decreases in nicotine exposure. However, neither change was clinically significant, suggesting minimal short-term adverse consequences of a nicotine reduction policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Incidence of opioid misuse by cigarette smoking status in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The combination of opioid misuse and cigarette smoking contributes to increased morbidity and mortality compared to each substance use alone. We estimated the incidence of opioid misuse for persons who currently or formerly smoked versus never smoked. METHODS: Data came from the 2015-2020 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health cross-sectional surveys of US civilians aged 12+ (n = 315,661). Weighted opioid misuse incidence and average time between cigarette use initiation and opioid misuse initiation were calculated annually by smoking status. Logistic regression models tested time trends in incidence by smoking status. RESULTS: Overall, 0.75% of persons initiated opioid misuse per year; opioid misuse incidence was 1.35% for those who currently smoked cigarettes, 0.54% for those who formerly smoked, and 0.67% for those who never smoked. For persons who currently smoked and misused opioids (1.50%), 95.08% smoked prior to opioid use. The average time between smoking followed by opioid misuse was 12.93 years and for opioid misuse followed by smoking was 4.36 years. Persons who currently smoked were more likely to initiate opioid misuse than those who had never smoked (AOR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.60, 2.06). There was a decrease in the opioid misuse incidence over time (AOR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.92), which did not differ by smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: Persons who currently smoked cigarettes, relative to those who never smoked, were more likely to initiate opioid misuse. As most individuals smoked before opioid misuse, it may be useful for primary prevention efforts to decrease opioid misuse initiation by focusing on smoking status.

Cigarette and Alternative Tobacco Product Use among Adult Cancer Survivors Enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials. METHODS: Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017-2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days. RESULTS: Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 < 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 < 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported. IMPACT: Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.

Preliminary feasibility of integrating tobacco treatment into SUD peer recovery coaching: a mixed-methods study of peer recovery coaches.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) have high prevalence of cigarette smoking and difficulty quitting. Peer recovery coaches (PRCs; individuals with lived SUD experience) facilitate SUD behavior change in recoverees but it is unknown if/how they address tobacco treatment in SUD recovery coaching. We assessed PRC's tobacco-related practices and attitudes about tobacco treatment in SUD recovery. METHODS: The Tobacco use In Peer-recovery Study (TIPS) was a cross-sectional mixed-methods pilot survey (January-March 2022) of the 26 PRCs employed by a Massachusetts-based healthcare system's 12 SUD treatment clinics/programs. PRCs completed a quantitative survey (n = 23/26; 88%) and a telephone-based qualitative interview (n = 20/26; 77%). RESULTS: One-third of PRCs reported current smoking, 50% reported former smoking, and 18% never smoked. Among PRCs, 61% reported accompanying recoverees outdoors to smoke, 26% smoked with recoverees, 17% had provided cigarettes to recoverees, 32% used smoking to help build peer-relationships, and 74% rated smoking as socially acceptable in SUD treatment. PRCs reported regularly talking to recoverees about tobacco treatment (65%), believed they should have a role in helping recoverees quit smoking (52%), and were interested in tobacco treatment training (65%). A majority of both nonsmoking and current smoking PRCs (73% vs. 57%) regularly talked to recoverees about quitting smoking. CONCLUSION: PRCs' attitudes about integrating tobacco treatment into SUD recovery coaching were generally positive and PRCs reported they could have a role in helping recoverees with tobacco treatment. Barriers to integrating tobacco treatment into SUD recovery include use of cigarettes as a peer-recovery tool and high prevalence and social acceptability of smoking in SUD recovery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to induce attempts to quit tobacco among adults not ready to quit.

The prevalence of past-year smoking cessation remains below 10% in the U.S. Most who smoke are not ready to quit in the near future. Cessation requires both (a) initiating a quit attempt (QA) and (b) maintaining abstinence. Most research has focused on abstinence among people already motivated to quit. We systematically reviewed interventions to promote QAs among people not motivated to quit tobacco. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Embase, and our personal libraries for randomized trials of tobacco interventions that reported QAs as an outcome among adults not ready to quit. We screened studies and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled findings of the 25 included studies using Mantel-Haenszel random effects meta-analyses when ≥ 2 studies tested the same intervention. Most (24) trials addressed cigarettes and one addressed smokeless tobacco. Substantial heterogeneity among trials resulted in a series of small meta-analyses. Findings indicate varenicline may increase QAs more than no varenicline, n = 320; RR = 1.4, 95% CI [1.1, 1.7]; I² = 0%, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may increase QAs more than no NRT, n = 2,568; RR = 1.1, 95% CI [1.02, 1.3]; I² = 0%. Pooled effects for motivational counseling, reduction counseling, and very low nicotine content cigarettes showed no clear evidence of benefit or harm. The evidence was judged to be of medium to very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias, suggesting that further research is likely to change interpretation of our results. Findings demonstrate the need for more high-quality research on interventions to induce QAs among adults not ready to quit tobacco. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Patients With Serious Mental Illness Can Engage in Tobacco Treatment Trials and Tobacco Cessation Interventions During Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: More than half of individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke, contributing to premature cancer mortality. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist with smoking cessation; however, supportive oncology trials frequently exclude patients with SMI. To fill this gap, we examined differences in engagement and tobacco cessation in a pragmatic clinical trial. METHODS: We recruited 303 participants from two National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, of which 10% had prior diagnoses of SMI (major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders). We compared self-reported smoking behaviors, patient attitudes and beliefs about cessation, and rates of trial completion, engagement, and smoking abstinence among recently diagnosed patients with cancer with and without SMI. Six months after trial completion, we completed qualitative interviews on barriers and facilitators to tobacco cessation in a random sample of participants with SMI. RESULTS: Trial participants with SMI had similar motivation to quit smoking as those without SMI. Additionally, participants with SMI had a similar ability to engage in a tobacco treatment trial (6.5 counseling sessions completed v 7.3 sessions) and benefit from tobacco treatment as those without SMI (32.3% v 27.8% 6-month quit rates). CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer and SMI were able to engage in and benefit from a tobacco cessation trial integrated into cancer care. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist patients with SMI with smoking cessation referrals and treatment. Pragmatic supportive oncology trials that include a diverse population of adults with SMI are needed to inform care delivery and improve cancer outcomes for patients with SMI and cancer.

Relating individual differences in the reinforcing value of smoking and dependence severity to nicotine exposure levels in vulnerable populations.

Cigarette smoking is overrepresented in populations with psychiatric conditions and socioeconomic disadvantage. Greater understanding of the role of reinforcement and nicotine dependence in smoking among vulnerable populations may facilitate development of better targeted interventions to reduce smoking. Prior research demonstrated that individual differences in the reinforcing value of smoking and nicotine-dependence severity predicted total nicotine-exposure in vulnerable populations. The present study uses multivariate regression to address two aims: (1) Quantify the degree to which the reinforcing value of smoking, assessed using the Cigarette Purchase Task (CPT), and dependence severity assessed using the Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence and Brief Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (B-WISDM) each account for individual differences in cotinine-plus-3'-hydroxycotinine (COT+3HC) levels. (2) Explore whether there is overlap in the variance accounted for by the CTP, FTND, and B-WISDM. Participants were 628 adults with co-morbid psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage who smoked daily. The CPT, FTND, and B-WISDM models accounted for 23.76%, 32.45%, and 29.61% of the variance in COT+3HC levels, respectively. Adding CPT to the FTND model failed to increase the variance accounted for and adding it to the B-WISDM model did so by only 1.2% demonstrating considerable overlap in the variance in nicotine exposure levels accounted for by these three instruments. These results provide new knowledge on the relationship between individual differences in the reinforcing value of smoking and nicotine-exposure levels and suggest differences in reinforcing value may underpin a considerable portion of the variance in nicotine exposure accounted for by dependence severity.

Prevalence of Cannabis Use and Cannabis Route of Administration among Massachusetts Adults in Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Recent prevalence estimates of cannabis use among individuals receiving medication treatment for OUD (MOUD) are lacking, and no study has characterized cannabis route of administration (cROA) in this population. These knowledge gaps are relevant because cannabis' effects and health outcomes vary by cROA and the availability and perceptions of cROA (e.g., vaping devices) are changing. METHODS: The Vaping In Buprenorphine-treated patients Evaluation (VIBE) cross-sectional survey assessed the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use and cROA among adults receiving buprenorphine MOUD from 02/20 to 07/20 at five community health centers in Massachusetts, a state with legal recreational and medical cannabis use. RESULTS: Among the 92/222 (41%) respondents reporting past 30-day cannabis use, smoking was the most common cROA (75%), followed by vaping (38%), and eating (26%). Smoking was more often used as a single cROA vs. in combination others (p = 0.01), whereas vaping, eating, and dabbing were more often used in combination with another cROA (all p < 0.05). Of the 39% of participants reporting multiple cROA, smoking and vaping (61%), and smoking and eating (50%), were the most prevalent combinations. Nonwhite race (vs. white) and current cigarette smoking (vs. no nicotine use) were associated with past 30-day cannabis use in multiple logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use among individuals receiving buprenorphine MOUD in Massachusetts in 2020 was nearly double the prevalence of cannabis use in Massachusetts' adult general population in 2019 (21%). Our data are consistent with state and national data showing smoking as the most common cROA.

Longitudinal Electronic Cigarette Use Among Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer Enrolled in a Smoking Cessation Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Many cancer patients who smoke report concurrent e-cigarette use. Using a mixed-methods approach, we aimed to (1) describe longitudinal e-cigarette use over 6 months after a cancer diagnosis and (2) assess the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, among cancer patients in a smoking cessation trial. AIMS AND METHODS: Data were from a 2-site randomized controlled trial of Standard (brief counseling) versus Intensive treatment (sustained counseling plus smoking cessation medication) in individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer. Participants (n = 303) reported e-cigarette use at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Biochemically-verified past 7-day cigarette abstinence was collected at 6 months. Qualitative interviews at 6 months explored factors related to e-cigarette use. RESULTS: E-cigarette use prevalence was highest between baseline and 3 months (16%) and declined over time. Participants using e-cigarettes at follow-up had higher baseline cigarette dependence and smoked more heavily. Multivariable analyses found no significant association between follow-up e-cigarette use and 6-month cigarette abstinence. E-cigarette use at follow-up was higher in the Standard versus Intensive treatment group (p = .003 and .001 at 3 and 6 mo, respectively). Smoking cessation and health concerns were primary reasons for using e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer and enrolled in a smoking cessation intervention trial, e-cigarette use during trial participation was not associated with smoking abstinence. Individuals who chose to use e-cigarettes were less likely to be receiving intensive cessation support as part of the trial. Further studies are needed to evaluate the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation in cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS: E-cigarette use was not associated with cigarette abstinence at 6 months among adults who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. Individuals with easier access to evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may be less likely to use e-cigarettes.

Corrigendum to "Examining the effects of stress and psychological distress on smoking abstinence in cancer patients" [Prev. Med. Rep. 23 (2021) 101402].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101402.].

Investigating documentation of alcohol and non-medical substance use in oncology treatment: an electronic health record review.

PURPOSE: Little is known about non-tobacco substance use (SU) and its treatment in cancer patients. National guidelines address tobacco only, and assessment of SU in cancer patients is not standardized. It is not clear how oncology clinicians assess, document, and follow-up on SU. METHODS: We conducted an electronic health record review of patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial at one large hospital site (N = 176). Chart review of oncology treatment notes assessed whether SU assessment was documented, the content of the documentation/assessment (e.g., frequency of use), and details about documentation (e.g., where/who documented). RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent (121/176) of cancer patients had SU documented. Many patients (42%, 74/176) had only one substance documented; 66% (116/176) had alcohol use documented. For a substantial minority of patients (43/176; 24%), the provider did not specify the substance assessed (e.g., "drug use," "illicits"). SU was primarily documented by physicians (84%, 102/121), in routine progress notes (56%, 68/121), in the "social history" section of the note (84%, 102/121). Only 4 patients had a documented SU follow-up plan. When examining the subset of patients who reported problematic alcohol use (N = 27), the content of documentation was inconsistent (e.g., number of drinks/day vs. qualitative descriptors of use). CONCLUSIONS: About 1/3 of oncology patients did not have SU assessment documented. SU other than alcohol use was infrequently documented, many clinicians documented SU but did not specify substance type, and few clinicians documented a follow-up plan for problematic SU. Oncology settings should utilize standardized assessment and referral for SU treatment.

Perceptions of E-cigarettes among adults in treatment for opioid use disorder.

Background: Individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) have a high prevalence of smoking and limited success quitting smoking with existing tools. There is ongoing debate about whether electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) may be a viable harm reduction strategy. We sought to determine the potential acceptability of e-cigarettes for cigarette harm reduction among individuals receiving medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) with buprenorphine. Among individuals receiving MOUD we investigated health harm perceptions of cigarettes, nicotine e-cigarettes, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and perceptions of the helpfulness of e-cigarettes and NRT for quitting cigarettes. Methods: Cross-sectional telephone survey conducted among adults in buprenorphine treatment at five community health centers in the Boston, MA metropolitan area from February to July 2020. Results: 93% and 63% of participants rated cigarettes and e-cigarettes, respectively, as very or extremely harmful to health, and 62% rated NRT as not to slightly harmful to health. Over half (58%) rated cigarettes as more harmful than e-cigarettes; 65% and 83% perceived e-cigarettes and NRT, respectively, to be helpful for reducing/quitting cigarette use. In bivariate analyses, nicotine e-cigarette users, compared to nonusers, perceived e-cigarettes to be less harmful to health and more often rated e-cigarettes as helpful for reducing/quitting cigarette use (both p<0.05). Conclusions: This study suggests that Massachusetts patients receiving MOUD with buprenorphine have concerns about the health harms of e-cigarettes yet rate them as helpful tools for reducing or quitting cigarette smoking. Future research is needed to test the efficacy of e-cigarettes for cigarette harm reduction.

Interest in Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation Among Adults With Opioid Use Disorder in Buprenorphine Treatment: A Mixed-Methods Investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) have high smoking rates and limited success with Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cessation aids, suggesting need for novel approaches. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) might benefit this population, but e-cigarettes' acceptability for tobacco reduction or cessation among smokers in OUD treatment is not known. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study of 222 adults in OUD treatment with buprenorphine in the Boston, Massachusetts metropolitan area was conducted in 2020. We used quantitative and qualitative data to investigate individuals' experience with and interest in e-cigarettes and other methods for smoking cessation and assessed factors associated with interest in e-cigarette use. RESULTS: One hundred sixty (72%) of the 222 participants were past 30-day cigarette smokers. They most frequently reported having ever used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; 83%) and e-cigarettes (71%) for smoking cessation and most often indicated interest in using NRT (71%) and e-cigarettes (44%) for future smoking cessation. In multiple logistic regression analysis, interest in using e-cigarettes for future smoking cessation was independently associated with having ever used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, current e-cigarette use, and perceiving e-cigarettes to be less harmful than cigarettes (ps < .05). In qualitative data, many current vapers/former smokers reported that e-cigarettes had been helpful for quitting cigarettes. For current smokers who currently or formerly vaped, frequently reported challenges in switching to e-cigarettes were concerns about replacing one addiction with another and e-cigarettes not adequately substituting for cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes had a moderate level of acceptability for smoking cessation among cigarette smokers in OUD treatment. More research is warranted to test the efficacy of this approach. IMPLICATIONS: Individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) have high smoking rates and limited success with existing smoking cessation tools, suggesting a need for novel cessation treatment approaches. In this mixed-methods study of individuals receiving medication treatment for OUD with buprenorphine in Massachusetts in 2020, we found a moderate level of acceptability of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Effects of Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes on Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Self-Reported Respiratory Health Outcomes Among Smokers With Psychiatric Conditions or Socioeconomic Disadvantage.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined whether exposure to reduced-nicotine-content cigarettes (RNCCs) for 12 weeks alters respiratory health using Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO), a validated biomarker of respiratory epithelial health, and the Respiratory Health Questionnaire (RHQ), a subject-rated questionnaire on respiratory symptoms. Participants were 747 adult daily smokers enrolled in three double-blind, randomized clinical trials evaluating effects of cigarette nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) in people with affective disorders, opioid use disorder (OUD), or socioeconomic disadvantage. AIMS AND METHODS: FeNO levels and RHQ ratings were collected at baseline and Weeks 6 and 12 following randomization. Multiple regression was used to assess associations of FeNO and RHQ with smoking characteristics. Mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the effects of nicotine content on FeNO and RHQ outcomes over the 12-week study period. RESULTS: FeNO levels but not RHQ ratings varied inversely with smoking characteristics at baseline (Ps < 0.0001) in smokers with affective disorders and socioeconomic disadvantage but less so in those with OUD. Participants with affective disorders and socioeconomic disadvantage, but not those with OUD, who were assigned to RNCCs had higher FeNO levels at Week 12 than those assigned to the 15.8 mg/g dose [F(2,423) = 4.51, p = .01, Cohen's d = 0.21]. No significant dose-related changes in RHQ scores were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Use of RNCCs across a 12-week period attenuates smoking-related reductions in FeNO levels in smokers with affective disorders and socioeconomic disadvantage although not those with OUD. FeNO changes were not accompanied by changes in respiratory-health ratings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample and experimental manipulation of the nicotine content of assigned cigarettes are registered: NCT02232737, NCT02250664, NCT02250534. The FeNO measure reported in this manuscript is an exploratory outcome that was not registered. IMPLICATIONS: Should a reduced nicotine content standard be implemented; these results suggest that reduced nicotine content in cigarettes will not exacerbate and instead may attenuate smoking-related decreases in FeNO. This is significant as NO is an important component in maintaining a healthy respiratory system and necessary to defend against infection. Furthermore, the results of the current study demonstrate that the adoption of the reduced nicotine content standard may result in beneficial impacts on respiratory epithelial health among vulnerable populations that are disproportionally affected by the adverse health outcomes precipitated by combustible tobacco use.

Intersectionality of serious psychological distress, cigarette smoking, and substance use disorders in the United States: 2008-2018.

BACKGROUND: Serious psychological distress (SPD) is common among adults who smoke cigarettes and among adults with substance use disorders (SUD). It is unknown whether the burden of SPD is even greater among individuals with both cigarette smoking and SUDs. This study examined the intersectionality of SPD, cigarette smoking, and SUD over time. METHODS: Data came from annual, cross-sectional, nationally representative samples of the United States (US) National Survey on Drug Use and Health (individuals age 12+). Past-month SPD prevalences were estimated each year from 2008 to 2018 for adults age 18+ with current daily, current non-daily, former, and never cigarette smoking by SUD status (combined n = 441,286). Logistic regression models examined linear time trends of SPD. RESULTS: In 2018, SPD was significantly more prevalent among adults in each smoking group with SUD versus those without SUD (daily 29.1% vs. 9.0%, non-daily 23.2% vs. 8.6%, former 19.5% vs. 3.2%, never 16.4% vs. 4.3%). After adjusting for sociodemographics, SPD prevalence increased over time across smoking statuses with a larger change for persons with SUD (AOR=1.07; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.09) vs. no SUD (AOR=1.03; 95% CI: 1.02. 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: SPD was more than twice as common among adults with SUD who smoke cigarettes compared to those without SUD who do not smoke cigarettes, with the highest prevalence among adults with both SUD and daily smoking. While SPD has increased over time, differences depended on SUD status beyond the effect of cigarette smoking. These results provide further evidence for treating smoking and mental health problems together.

Cumulative vulnerabilities as a potential moderator of response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes.

Risk for smoking increases in a summative manner corresponding to the number of co-occurring vulnerabilities present (cumulative vulnerability). We examined whether cumulative vulnerabilities moderate response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes in a secondary analysis of results from 775 participants in three 12-week randomized clinical trials examining research cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco). Participants were categorized as having 0-1, 2-3, or ≥ 4 cumulative vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities included: rural residence, current substance use disorder, current affective disorder, low educational attainment, poverty, unemployment, physical disability. The primary outcome was total cigarettes per day (CPD) during Week 12; secondary outcomes included CPD across weeks, toxin exposure, dependence severity, craving/withdrawal (17 dependent measures). Results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of covariance and growth-curve modeling. Total CPD during Week 12 increased as cumulative-vulnerability increased (P = 0.004), and decreased as nicotine content decreased (P < 0.001), with no significant interaction of cumulative vulnerability and dose (P = 0.67). Effects on other outcomes generally followed that same pattern. The only exception across the other outcomes was on Questionnaire-on-Smoking-Urges Factor-2 ratings for usual-brand cigarettes where cumulative vulnerability, dose, and time interacted (P = 0.007), with craving at the 0.4 and 2.4 mg/g doses decreasing over time, but inconsistently across vulnerability categories. Overall, we saw little evidence that cumulative vulnerabilities moderate response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes suggesting that a policy reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to minimally addictive levels could benefit even highly vulnerable smokers including those residing in rural or other regions with overrepresentation of co-occurring vulnerabilities. Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02232737, NCT02250664, NCT02250534.