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.

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.

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.

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.

Prevalence and characteristics of co-occurrence of smoking and increasing-and-higher-risk drinking: A population survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Smoking and drinking alcohol both significantly contribute to mortality and morbidity, and there is a need to characterise the sociodemographic and health-related characteristics (e.g. mental distress) of people who do both in order to target resources. This study reports the prevalence and characteristics of adults in the general population in England who both drink alcohol at increasing-and-higher-risk levels and smoke. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from a monthly, nationally representative survey of adults in England (n = 37,258; April 2020-March 2022). Weighted data were used to report prevalence and unweighted data were used to report descriptive statistics for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. RESULTS: The prevalence of both smoking and increasing-and-higher-risk drinking was 4.6% (95% CI = 4.4-4.9; n = 1,574). They smoked a mean of 10.4 (SD = 8.86) cigarettes per day and had a mean AUDIT score of 12.8 (SD = 5.18). Nearly half (48.2%, n = 751) were trying to cut down on their smoking and 28.0% (n = 441) on their drinking. A quarter (25.3%, n = 397) had received General Practitioner advice on smoking while 8.7% (n = 76) had received advice on their drinking. Nearly half (48.6%, n = 745) reported experiencing psychological distress in the past month and 44.6% (n = 529) had a diagnosed mental health condition, both of which were higher than among all adults (28.1% and 29.1%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In England, from April 2020 to March 2022, the prevalence of both smoking and increasing-and-higher-risk drinking was 4.6%. This group appears to experience high rates of mental health problems and targeted support is needed.

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.

Self-reported depression and anxiety and healthcare professional interactions regarding smoking cessation and nicotine vaping: Findings from 2018 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) Survey.

INTRODUCTION: People with mental health conditions are disproportionately affected by smoking-related diseases and death. The aim of this study was to assess whether health professional (HP) interactions regarding smoking cessation and nicotine vaping products (NVPs) differ by mental health condition. METHODS: The cross-sectional 2018 International Tobacco Control Four Country (Australia, Canada, England, United States) Smoking and Vaping Survey data included 11040 adults currently smoking or recently quit. Adjusted weighted logistic regressions examined associations between mental health (self-reported current depression and/or anxiety) and visiting a HP in last 18 months; receiving advice to quit smoking; discussing NVPs with a HP; and receiving a recommendation to use NVPs. RESULTS: Overall, 16.1% self-reported depression and anxiety, 7.6% depression only, and 6.6% anxiety only. Compared with respondents with no depression/anxiety, those with depression (84.7%, AOR=2.65; 95% CI: 2.17-3.27), anxiety (82.2%, AOR=2.08; 95% CI: 1.70-2.57), and depression and anxiety (87.6%, AOR=3.74; 95% CI: 3.19-4.40) were more likely to have visited a HP. Among those who had visited a HP, 47.9% received advice to quit smoking, which was more likely among respondents with depression (AOR=1.58; 95% CI: 1.34-1.86), and NVP discussions were more likely among those with depression and anxiety (AOR=1.63; 95% CI: 1.29-2.06). Of the 6.1% who discussed NVPs, 33.5% received a recommendation to use them, with no difference by mental health. CONCLUSIONS: People with anxiety and/or depression who smoke were more likely to visit a HP than those without, but only those with depression were more likely to receive cessation advice, and only those with depression and anxiety were more likely to discuss NVPs. There are missed opportunities for HPs to deliver cessation advice. NVP discussions and receiving a positive recommendation to use them were rare overall.

Trends in Psychological Distress Among Adults in England, 2020-2022.

Importance: In the last 3 years, people in England have lived through a pandemic and cost-of-living and health care crises, all of which may have contributed to worsening mental health in the population. Objective: To estimate trends in psychological distress among adults over this period and to examine differences by key potential moderators. Design, Setting, and Participants: A monthly cross-sectional, nationally representative household survey of adults aged 18 years or older was conducted in England between April 2020 and December 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Past-month distress was assessed with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. Time trends in any distress (moderate to severe, scores ≥5) and severe distress (scores ≥13) were modeled, and interactions with age, gender, occupational social grade, children in the household, smoking status, and drinking risk status were tested. Results: Data were collected from 51 861 adults (weighted mean [SD] age, 48.6 [18.5] years; 26 609 women [51.3%]). There was little overall change in the proportion of respondents reporting any distress (from 34.5% to 32.0%; prevalence ratio [PR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99), but the proportion reporting severe distress increased by 46%, from 5.7% to 8.3% (PR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.21-1.76). Although trends differed by sociodemographic characteristics, smoking, and drinking, the increase in severe distress was observed across all subgroups (with PR estimates ranging from 1.17 to 2.16), with the exception of those aged 65 years and older (PR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.43-1.38); the increase was particularly pronounced since late 2021 among those younger than 25 years (increasing from 13.6% in December 2021 to 20.2% in December 2022). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of adults in England, the proportion reporting any psychological distress was similar in December 2022 to that in April 2020 (an extremely difficult and uncertain moment of the COVID-19 pandemic), but the proportion reporting severe distress was 46% higher. These findings provide evidence of a growing mental health crisis in England and underscore an urgent need to address its cause and to adequately fund mental health services.

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.

Pattern and prevalence of vaping nicotine and non-nicotine drugs in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Electronic vaping devices are being used to consume nicotine and non-nicotine psychoactive drugs. We aimed to determine the pattern and prevalence of using vaping devices for nicotine and/or non-nicotine drug administration in the United Kingdom and how these differ by drug type and individual sociodemographic characteristics. We explored reasons for vaping onset and continuation. DESIGN: An online cross-sectional survey PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of adults (aged ≥18 years) in the UK. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was prevalence of current use (within the last 30 days) of a vaping device to administer either nicotine or 18 types of non-nicotine drugs. We additionally evaluated reasons for onset and continuation of vaping. Sociodemographic characteristics were compared between the UK general population using census data and those vaping non-nicotine drugs. RESULTS: We recruited 4027 participants of whom 1637 (40.7%) had ever used an electronic vaping device; 1495 (37.1%) had ever vaped nicotine and 593 (14.7%) had ever vaped a non-nicotine drug. Overall, 574 (14.3%) currently vaped nicotine and 74 (1.8%) currently vaped a non-nicotine drug. The most common currently vaped non-nicotine drug was cannabis (n=58, 1.4%). For nicotine, people's modal reasons to start and continue vaping was to quit smoking tobacco. For almost all other drugs, people's modal reason to start vaping was curiosity and to continue was enjoyment. Compared with the general population, the population who had ever vaped a non-nicotine drug were significantly younger, had more disabilities and fewer identified as white, female, heterosexual or religious. CONCLUSIONS: A non-trivial number of people report current use and ever use of an electronic vaping device for non-nicotine drug administration. As vaping technology advances and drug consumption changes, understanding patterns of use and associated behaviours are likely to be increasingly important to both users and healthcare professionals.

Implementation strategies to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there is an 'evidence-practice gap' in the rate healthcare professionals assess tobacco use and offer cessation support in clinical practice, including primary care. Evidence is needed for implementation strategies enacted in the 'real-world'. AIM: To identify implementation strategies aiming to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care, their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and any perceived facilitators and barriers for effectiveness. METHODS: 'Embase', 'Medline', 'PsycINFO', 'CINAHL', 'Global Health', 'Social Policy & Practice', 'ASSIA Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts' databases, and grey literature sources were searched from inception to April 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated an implementation strategy implemented on a nation-/state-wide scale, targeting any type of healthcare professional within the primary care setting, aiming to increase smoking cessation treatment provision. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: implementation strategy identification, and effectiveness (practitioner-/patient-level). SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: perceived facilitators and barriers to effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Studies were assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Of 49 included papers, half were of moderate/low risk of bias. The implementation strategy domains identified involved utilizing financial strategies, changing infrastructure, training and educating stakeholders, and engaging consumers. The first three increased practitioner-level smoking status recording and cessation advice provision. Interventions in the utilizing financial strategies domain also appeared to increase smoking cessation (patient-level). Key facilitator: external policies/incentives (tobacco control measures and funding for public health and cessation clinics). Key barriers: time and financial constraints, lack of free cessation medications and follow-up, deprioritisation and unclear targets in primary care, lack of knowledge of healthcare professionals, and unclear messaging to patients about available cessation support options. No studies assessed cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Some implementation strategy categories increased the rate of smoking status recording and cessation advice provision in primary care. We found some evidence for interventions utilizing financial strategies having a beneficial impact on cessation. Identified barriers to effectiveness should be reduced. More pragmatic approaches are recommended, such as hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs and utilising Multiphase Optimization Strategy methodology. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO:CRD42021246683.

Association of psychological distress with smoking cessation, duration of abstinence from smoking, and use of non-combustible nicotine-containing products: A cross-sectional population survey in Great Britain.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking cessation is associated with improvements in mental health. This study assessed psychological distress, using the K6 non-specific screening tool ((items cover feelings of nervousness, hopelessness, restlessness, depression, 'everything an effort' and worthlessness), by smoking status, time since quit, and use of a non-combustible nicotine product. METHODS: Monthly repeat cross-sectional household survey of adults (18 + ) from October 2020-February 2022 in Great Britain (N = 32,727). Using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression (adjusted models included socio-demographic characteristics and ever diagnosis with a mental health condition), we assessed: associations between any/serious past-month psychological distress and smoking status and time since quit, whether these relationships were moderated by ever diagnosis with a mental health condition, and associations between distress and use of a nicotine product by people who formerly smoked. RESULTS: In the unadjusted model, those who had not smoked for > 1y and who had never smoked had lower odds of any distress (OR = 0·42, 95 % CI 0·39-0·45; OR = 0·44, 0·41-0·47) compared with those who currently smoked. Moreover, the association of lower distress in those who had not smoked for > 1y and never smoked compared with those who currently smoked was more pronounced among those who had ever been diagnosed with a mental health condition (AOR = 0·58, 0·51-0·66; AOR = 0·60, 0·53-0·67) than among those who had not (AOR = 0·86, 0·76-0·98; AOR = 0·72, 0·65-0·81). In adjusted models of people who formerly smoked, current use of any nicotine product was associated with higher odds of distress compared with not using any nicotine product (AOR 1·23, 1·06-1·42). CONCLUSION: People who had never smoked, or had not smoked for > 1y had lower levels of distress than those who currently smoked. The lower odds of distress among people who had not smoked for > 1y was more pronounced among those with an ever (vs never) diagnosis of a mental health condition. Nicotine product use among those who formerly smoked was associated with greater distress. Due to potential residual confounding and selection bias more research is needed to determine causality.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Participant Experiences of a Quit Smoking Attempt Through Either Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Methods or the Use of an E-cigarette.

OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of evidence exploring experiences of using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. The study's main aim was to explore participant experiences of e-cigarettes compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) delivered through stop smoking services. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to-face, and telephone interviews at 3-month post-quit follow-up in a randomized controlled trial comparing nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, nicotine-free e-cigarettes, and NRT for smoking cessation. N = 17 participants, 9 were male, mean age 44 years, 5 using nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, 7 nicotine-free e-cigarettes, and 5 NRT. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two global themes and 5 organizing themes were identified. Global themes included: (1) experiences of e-cigarette and NRT quit aids (e-cigarette positive impact and dilemmas, NRT perceptions and experiences), and (2) key mechanisms to support quit attempt (physical aids, advice and support, feedback and structure). E-cigarettes were viewed with caution, however, generally evaluated positively alongside NRT methods, finding e-cigarettes useful during a quit attempt due to their versatility in application. Nicotinecontaining e-cigarettes were favored due to their support with nicotine cravings. Participants were, however, wary of replacing smoking addiction with vaping habit. CONCLUSIONS: Participant e-cigarette experience were generally positive; however, concerns over long-term application were noted. There was a noticeable preference for nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, but further research is required to better understand how nicotine is used in conjunction with e-cigarettes long-term as a quit aid alongside other NRT.

Harm perceptions of nicotine-containing products and associated sources of information in UK adults with and without mental ill health: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: People with mental ill health are more likely to smoke and experience smoking-related harm than those without. Switching from combustible tobacco to lower-risk nicotine-containing products may be of benefit; however, misperceptions of harm may prevent their use. We aimed to assess, among adults with and without mental ill health, (1) perceptions of harm from nicotine and relative harm and addictiveness of different nicotine-containing products and (2) sources of information associated with harm perceptions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: On-line survey of adults (n = 3400) who smoke cigarettes and/or use e-cigarettes, or have recently stopped, in the United Kingdom. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes: harm perceptions of nicotine; relative perceived harm and addictiveness of different nicotine-containing products; sources of information for harm perceptions of nicotine, cigarette smoking and e-cigarettes. Demographics: sex, age, education, ethnic group and region. Other measures: self-reported smoking, vaping and mental health status. ANALYSES: frequencies and logistic regressions adjusting for demographic/other measures. FINDINGS: Among those with serious mental distress (versus no/low mental distress): 9.6% [13.9%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-0.97] correctly identified that none/a very small amount of the health risks of smoking cigarettes come from nicotine; 41.7% (53.5%, aOR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.54-0.84) perceived e-cigarettes and 53.2% (70.3%, aOR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.50-0.77) perceived nicotine replacement therapy to be less harmful than cigarettes; and 42.1% (51.3%, aOR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.62-0.95) perceived e-cigarettes as being less likely than cigarettes to cause cancer, 35.4% (45.5%, aOR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.57-0.88) heart attacks and 34.9% (42.3%, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.64-0.99) lung problems. The most popular sources of information for cigarette smoking, e-cigarettes and nicotine were scientific experts' opinions and media reports, with little variation by mental distress. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with a history of tobacco and/or e-cigarette use, those with serious mental distress appear to have less accurate harm perceptions of nicotine and nicotine-containing products than those with no/low distress, despite reporting similar sources of information.