The impact of introducing alcohol-free beer options in bars and public houses on alcohol sales and revenue: A randomised crossover field trial.

AIMS: The study aimed to estimate the impact of introducing a draught alcohol-free beer, thereby increasing the relative availability of these products, on alcohol sales and monetary takings in bars and pubs in England. DESIGN: Randomised crossover field trial. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen venues that did not previously sell draught alcohol-free beer. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Venues completed two intervention periods and two control periods in a randomised order over 8 weeks. Intervention periods involved replacing one draught alcoholic beer with an alcohol-free beer. Control periods operated business as usual. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was mean weekly volume (in litres) of draught alcoholic beer sold. The secondary outcome was mean weekly revenue [in GBP (£)] from all drinks. Analyses adjusted for randomised order, special events, season and busyness. FINDINGS: The adjusted mean difference in weekly sales of draught alcoholic beer was -20 L [95% confidence interval (CI) = -41 to +0.4], equivalent to a 4% reduction (95% CI = 8% reduction to 0.1% increase) in the volume of alcoholic draught beer sold when draught alcohol-free beer was available. Excluding venues that failed at least one fidelity check resulted in an adjusted mean difference of -29 L per week (95% CI = -53 to -5), equivalent to a 5% reduction (95% CI = 8% reduction to 0.8% reduction). The adjusted mean difference in weekly revenue was +61 GBP per week (95% CI = -328 to +450), equivalent to a 1% increase (95% CI = 5% decrease to 7% increase) when draught alcohol-free beer was available. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a draught alcohol-free beer in bars and pubs in England reduced the volume of draught alcoholic beer sold by 4% to 5%, with no evidence of the intervention impacting net revenue.

Investigating the effect of sexual behaviour on oropharyngeal cancer risk: a methodological assessment of Mendelian randomization.

BACKGROUND: Human papilloma virus infection is known to influence oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) risk, likely via sexual transmission. However, sexual behaviour has been correlated with other risk factors including smoking and alcohol, meaning independent effects are difficult to establish. We aimed to evaluate the causal effect of sexual behaviour on the risk of OPC using Mendelian randomization (MR). METHODS: Genetic variants robustly associated with age at first sex (AFS) and the number of sexual partners (NSP) were used to perform both univariable and multivariable MR analyses with summary data on 2641 OPC cases and 6585 controls, obtained from the largest available genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Given the potential for genetic pleiotropy, we performed a number of sensitivity analyses: (i) MR methods to account for horizontal pleiotropy, (ii) MR of sexual behaviours on positive (cervical cancer and seropositivity for Chlamydia trachomatis) and negative control outcomes (lung and oral cancer), (iii) Causal Analysis Using Summary Effect estimates (CAUSE), to account for correlated and uncorrelated horizontal pleiotropic effects, (iv) multivariable MR analysis to account for the effects of smoking, alcohol, risk tolerance and educational attainment. RESULTS: In univariable MR, we found evidence supportive of an effect of both later AFS (IVW OR = 0.4, 95%CI (0.3, 0.7), per standard deviation (SD), p = < 0.001) and increasing NSP (IVW OR = 2.2, 95%CI (1.3, 3.8) per SD, p = < 0.001) on OPC risk. These effects were largely robust to sensitivity analyses accounting for horizontal pleiotropy. However, negative control analysis suggested potential violation of the core MR assumptions and subsequent CAUSE analysis implicated pleiotropy of the genetic instruments used to proxy sexual behaviours. Finally, there was some attenuation of the univariable MR results in the multivariable models (AFS IVW OR = 0.7, 95%CI (0.4, 1.2), p = 0.21; NSP IVW OR = 0.9, 95%CI (0.5 1.7), p = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Despite using genetic variants strongly related sexual behaviour traits in large-scale GWAS, we found evidence for correlated pleiotropy. This emphasizes a need for multivariable approaches and the triangulation of evidence when performing MR of complex behavioural traits.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes. DESIGN: Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results. SETTING: Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes. INTERVENTIONS: Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019. REVIEW METHODS: Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model. RESULTS: Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard. LIMITATIONS: Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified. CONCLUSIONS: Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK. FUTURE WORK: Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cigarette smoking is one of the main causes of early death both in the UK and worldwide. Three medicines, varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy, are licensed in the UK to help people stop smoking. E-cigarettes can also be used as a stop smoking aid. We combined information from previous studies, including clinical trials, to determine which product was the safest, most effective and best value for money for the NHS. We compared treatments that were given alone as well as treatments that were combined with others, such as combination nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline combined with nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline combined with bupropion and bupropion combined with nicotine replacement therapy. The last three combined treatments are not currently licensed in the UK for smoking cessation. We also compared different treatment doses (low, high and standard doses). We found that most treatments were more effective than placebo in helping people to quit smoking. One of the combination treatments (varenicline at standard dose combined with nicotine replacement therapy at standard dose) was the most effective at getting people to quit smoking, followed by e-cigarette at low dose, varenicline at standard dose combined with bupropion at standard dose, and e-cigarette at high dose. We also found that smokers with higher tobacco dependence and smokers treated with counselling alongside medicines achieved a higher proportion of continuous quitting. We also found evidence that the standard dose of bupropion was associated with an increased risk of serious side effects compared with placebo. There was inconclusive evidence that any of the treatments increased the risk of major cardiovascular side effects. There was some evidence that smokers who received a standard dose of varenicline had an increased risk of major neurological and psychiatric side effects compared with those receiving a standard dose of bupropion. E-cigarette at low dose, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard and varenicline standard plus bupropion standard were the best value for money interventions, but further clinical trials comparing treatments against each other are needed to increase confidence in these findings.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the United Kingdom Accounting for Major Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events.

OBJECTIVES: Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom. METHODS: An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information. RESULTS: When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most cost-effective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose + bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose + NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose + NRT standard-dose. CONCLUSION: Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.

The SPECTRUM Consortium: a new UK Prevention Research Partnership consortium focussed on the commercial determinants of health, the prevention of non-communicable diseases, and the reduction of health inequalities.

The main causes of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), health inequalities and health inequity include consumption of unhealthy commodities such as tobacco, alcohol and/or foods high in fat, salt and/or sugar. These exposures are preventable, but the commodities involved are highly profitable. The economic interests of 'Unhealthy Commodity Producers' (UCPs) often conflict with health goals but their role in determining health has received insufficient attention. In order to address this gap, a new research consortium has been established. This open letter introduces the SPECTRUM ( S haping  Public h Ealth poli Cies  To  Reduce ineq Ualities and har M)Consortium: a multi-disciplinary group comprising researchers from 10 United Kingdom (UK) universities and overseas, and partner organisations including three national public health agencies in Great Britain (GB), five multi-agency alliances and two companies providing data and analytic support. Through eight integrated work packages, the Consortium seeks to provide an understanding of the nature of the complex systems underlying the consumption of unhealthy commodities, the role of UCPs in shaping these systems and influencing health and policy, the role of systems-level interventions, and the effectiveness of existing and emerging policies. Co-production is central to the Consortium's approach to advance research and achieve meaningful impact and we will involve the public in the design and delivery of our research. We will also establish and sustain mutually beneficial relationships with policy makers, alongside our partners, to increase the visibility, credibility and impact of our evidence. The Consortium's ultimate aim is to achieve meaningful health benefits for the UK population by reducing harm and inequalities from the consumption of unhealthy commodities over the next five years and beyond.

Impact of health warning labels communicating the risk of cancer on alcohol selection: an online experimental study.

AIMS: Evidence from tobacco research suggests that health warning labels (HWLs) depicting the adverse consequences of consumption change smoking behaviours, with image-and-text (also known as 'pictorial' or 'graphic') HWLs most effective. There is an absence of evidence concerning the potential impact of HWLs placed on alcohol products on selection of those products. This study aimed to obtain a preliminary assessment of the possible impact of (i) image-and-text, (ii) text-only, and (iii) image-only HWLs on selection of alcoholic versus non-alcoholic drinks. DESIGN: A between-subjects randomised experiment with a 2 (image: present versus absent) × 2 (text: present versus absent) factorial design. SETTING: The study was conducted on the online survey platform Qualtrics. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n = 6024) were adults over the age of 18 who consumed beer or wine regularly (i.e. at least once a week), recruited through a market research agency. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to one of four groups varying in the HWL displayed on the packaging of alcoholic drinks: (i) image-and-text HWL; (ii) text-only HWL; (iii) image-only HWL; and (iv) no HWL. HWLs depicted bowel cancer, breast cancer and liver cancer, which were each displayed twice across six alcoholic drinks. Each group viewed six alcoholic and six non-alcoholic drinks and selected one drink that they would like to consume. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants selecting an alcoholic versus a non-alcoholic drink. FINDINGS: Alcoholic drink selection was lower for all HWL types compared with no HWL (image-and-text: 56%; image-only: 49%; text-only: 61%; no HWL: 77%), with selection lowest for HWLs that included an image. Image-and-text HWLs reduced the odds of selecting an alcoholic drink compared with text-only HWLs (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.69, 0.92), but increased the odds of selecting an alcoholic drink compared with image-only HWLs (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.16, 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: Health warning labels communicating the increased risk of cancers associated with alcohol consumption reduced selection of alcoholic versus non-alcoholic drinks in a hypothetical choice task in an online setting; labels displaying images had the largest effect. Their impact in laboratory and real-world field settings using physical products awaits investigation.

The impact on selection of non-alcoholic vs alcoholic drink availability: an online experiment.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the availability of healthier food increases its selection and consumption. However, there is an absence of evidence related to alcohol. This study aimed to estimate the impact of increasing the absolute and relative availability of non-alcoholic compared to alcoholic drinks on selection. We also assessed whether effects were modified by cognitive resource. METHODS: UK adult weekly alcohol consumers (n = 808) were recruited to an online experiment with a hypothetical drink selection task. Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions, in a 4 (availability) × 2 (cognitive resource) factorial design. The four availability conditions were: i. Reference 1 (two non-alcoholic, two alcoholic drinks); ii. Reference 2 (four non-alcoholic, four alcoholic drinks); iii. Increased non-alcoholic drinks (six non-alcoholic, two alcoholic drinks); iv. Increased alcoholic drinks (two non-alcoholic, six alcoholic drinks). The two cognitive resource conditions were: a. Low (high time pressure); b. High (low time pressure). Logistic regression was used to assess selection of a non-alcoholic drink. RESULTS: 49% of participants selected a non-alcoholic drink in the Increased non-alcoholic drinks condition, compared to 36% in Reference 1, 39% in Reference 2, and 26% in the Increased alcoholic drinks condition. Non-alcoholic drink selection was similar between Reference 1 and 2 when the total number of drinks increased (absolute availability) but the proportion of non-alcoholic compared to alcoholic drinks (relative availability) was unchanged (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.77, 1.73). In contrast, the odds of selecting a non-alcoholic drink were 71% higher when both absolute and relative availability of non-alcoholic compared to alcoholic drinks was increased from Reference 1 to the Increased non-alcoholic drinks condition (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.15, 2.54), and 48% higher when increased from Reference 2 to the Increased non-alcoholic drinks condition (OR: 1.48, 95% CI 0.99, 2.19). There was no evidence of an effect of cognitive resource. CONCLUSIONS: Greater availability of non-alcoholic drinks, compared to alcoholic drinks, increased their online selection, an effect that may be larger when changing their relative availability, i.e., increasing the proportion of non-alcoholic drinks. Naturalistic studies are needed to determine the impact of availability interventions on reducing alcohol purchasing and consumption.

Varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: an observational study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the leading avoidable cause of illness and premature mortality. The first-line treatments for smoking cessation are nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline. Meta-analyses of experimental studies have shown that participants allocated to the varenicline group were 1.57 times (95% confidence interval 1.29 to 1.91 times) as likely to be abstinent 6 months after treatment as those allocated to the nicotine replacement therapy group. However, there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of varenicline when prescribed in primary care. We investigated the effectiveness and rate of adverse events of these medicines in the general population. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of prescribing varenicline on smoking cessation rates and health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Clinical Practice Research Datalink. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study using electronic medical records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We extracted data on all patients who were prescribed varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy after 1 September 2006 who were aged ≥ 18 years. We investigated the effects of varenicline on smoking cessation, all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality and hospitalisation for: (1) chronic lung disease, (2) lung cancer, (3) coronary heart disease, (4) pneumonia, (5) cerebrovascular disease, (6) diabetes, and (7) external causes; primary care diagnosis of myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or prescription for anxiety; weight in kg; general practitioner and hospital attendance. Our primary outcome was smoking cessation 2 years after the first prescription. We investigated the baseline differences between patients prescribed varenicline and patients prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. We report results using multivariable-adjusted, propensity score and instrumental variable regression. Finally, we developed methods to assess the relative bias of the different statistical methods we used. RESULTS: People prescribed varenicline were healthier at baseline than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy in almost all characteristics, which highlighted the potential for residual confounding. Our instrumental variable analysis results found little evidence that patients prescribed varenicline had lower mortality 2 years after their first prescription (risk difference 0.67, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to 1.46) than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. They had similar rates of all-cause hospitalisation, incident primary care diagnoses of myocardial infarction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. People prescribed varenicline subsequently attended primary care less frequently. Patients prescribed varenicline were more likely (odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.42 to 1.50) to be abstinent 6 months after treatment than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy when estimated using multivariable-adjusted for baseline covariates. Patients from more deprived areas were less likely to be prescribed varenicline. However, varenicline had similar effectiveness for these groups. CONCLUSION: Patients prescribed varenicline in primary care were more likely to quit smoking than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy, but there was little evidence that they had lower rates of mortality or morbidity in the 4 years following the first prescription. There was little evidence of heterogeneity in effectiveness across the population. FUTURE WORK: Future research should investigate the decline in prescribing of smoking cessation products; develop an optimal treatment algorithm for smoking cessation; use methods for using instruments with survival outcomes; and develop methods for comparing multivariable-adjusted and instrumental variable estimates. LIMITATIONS: Not all of our code lists were validated, body mass index and Index of Multiple Deprivation had missing values, our results may suffer from residual confounding, and we had no information on treatment adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as NCT02681848. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Smoking is the number one avoidable cause of ill health and death. Experiments suggest that more smokers will quit after being given the drug varenicline than with any other smoking cessation treatment. However, most of the experiments used to license varenicline had a relatively short follow-up (< 1 year) and did not necessarily recruit participants who were representative of smokers seen in a general practice in the UK, who tend to be older, are sicker and more likely to have neuropsychiatric illnesses. In this study, we investigated the outcomes of 287,079 patients prescribed varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. nicotine patches and gum). We followed each patient for up to 4 years after they received their prescriptions and matched their data to information on deaths from the Office for National Statistics and hospital admissions. We investigated how often these patients subsequently attended their general practitioner, and how often they received a diagnosis of myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression or anxiety in primary care. We found that patients who were prescribed varenicline were much more likely to quit smoking up to 4 years after they received treatment and subsequently attended their general practitioner less frequently. These findings were robust across the three different analysis methods we used. We also found that patients prescribed varenicline were much less likely to be ill or to die than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. However, these results may be because the patients who were prescribed varenicline were much healthier before they received the prescription. Therefore, these differences in health are unlikely to be caused by taking varenicline or quitting smoking. In conclusion, varenicline helped patients quit smoking, but there was little causal evidence that prescribing patients varenicline causally reduced rates of mortality or morbidity compared with prescribing nicotine replacement therapy.

Mendelian randomisation analysis of the effect of educational attainment and cognitive ability on smoking behaviour.

Recent analyses have shown educational attainment to be associated with a number of health outcomes. This association may, in part, be due to an effect of educational attainment on smoking behaviour. In this study, we apply a multivariable Mendelian randomisation design to determine whether the effect of educational attainment on smoking behaviour is due to educational attainment or general cognitive ability. We use individual data from the UK Biobank study (N = 120,050) and summary data from large GWA studies of educational attainment, cognitive ability and smoking behaviour. Our results show that more years of education are associated with a reduced likelihood of smoking that is not due to an effect of general cognitive ability on smoking behaviour. Given the considerable physical harms associated with smoking, the effect of educational attainment on smoking is likely to contribute to the health inequalities associated with differences in educational attainment.

The effect of smoking intensity on all-cause and cause-specific mortality-a Mendelian randomization analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is an important cause of mortality and recent studies have suggested that even low-intensity smoking might be associated with increased mortality. Still, smoking is associated with lower socio-economic status as well as other potential risk factors, and disease onset might motivate smoking cessation, thus residual confounding and reverse causality might bias results. We aimed to assess the evidence of a causal relationship between smoking intensity and cause-specific as well as all-cause-mortality using Mendelian randomization analyses. METHODS: We included 56 019 participants from the Norwegian HUNT2 Study and 337 103 participants from UK Biobank, linked to national registry data on causes of death. We estimated associations of self-reported smoking as well as the genetic variant rs1051730 as an instrument for smoking intensity with all-cause and cause-specific mortality. We subsequently meta-analysed the results from the two cohorts. RESULTS: Each effect allele of the rs1051730 was associated with a 9% increased hazard of all-cause mortality [95% confidence interval (CI) 6-11] among ever smokers. Effect alleles were also associated with death by neoplasms [hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% CI 1.06-1.15], circulatory diseases (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) and respiratory diseases (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26) among ever smokers. The association was stronger among ever than never smokers for all-cause mortality (p < 0.001), neoplasms (p = 0.001) and respiratory diseases (p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a causal effect of smoking intensity on all-cause mortality and death by neoplasms and respiratory diseases. There was weaker evidence of a causal effect of smoking intensity on death by circulatory diseases.

A transdiagnostic dimensional approach towards a neuropsychological assessment for addiction: an international Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The US National Institutes of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) seek to stimulate research into biologically validated neuropsychological dimensions across mental illness symptoms and diagnoses. The RDoC framework comprises 39 functional constructs designed to be revised and refined, with the overall goal of improving diagnostic validity and treatments. This study aimed to reach a consensus among experts in the addiction field on the 'primary' RDoC constructs most relevant to substance and behavioural addictions. METHODS: Forty-four addiction experts were recruited from Australia, Asia, Europe and the Americas. The Delphi technique was used to determine a consensus as to the degree of importance of each construct in understanding the essential dimensions underpinning addictive behaviours. Expert opinions were canvassed online over three rounds (97% completion rate), with each consecutive round offering feedback for experts to review their opinions. RESULTS: Seven constructs were endorsed by ≥ 80% of experts as 'primary' to the understanding of addictive behaviour: five from the Positive Valence System (reward valuation, expectancy, action selection, reward learning, habit); one from the Cognitive Control System (response selection/inhibition); and one expert-initiated construct (compulsivity). These constructs were rated to be related differentially to stages of the addiction cycle, with some linked more closely to addiction onset and others more to chronicity. Experts agreed that these neuropsychological dimensions apply across a range of addictions. CONCLUSIONS: The study offers a novel and neuropsychologically informed theoretical framework, as well as a cogent step forward to test transdiagnostic concepts in addiction research, with direct implications for assessment, diagnosis, staging of disorder, and treatment.

How do smoking cessation medicines compare with respect to their neuropsychiatric safety? A protocol for a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death in the UK and worldwide. Public health guidance recommends the use of varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as smoking cessation aids in the UK. Additionally, the first electronic cigarette has been licensed for use as a smoking cessation medicine. However, there are ongoing concerns about the safety of these medicines. We present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine how these smoking cessation medicines compare to each other with respect to their neuropsychiatric safety in adult smokers. Secondary aims include updating the evidence regarding the effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of these medicines for use in a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include randomised controlled trials and observational studies with control groups comparing monotherapy with varenicline, bupropion, NRT or electronic cigarette and combination therapies to each other, placebo or usual care. The primary composite safety outcome will be serious adverse events, defined as events that resulted in death, were life threatening, required hospitalisation or resulted in significant disability or congenital/birth defect. The preferred effectiveness outcome will be sustained smoking cessation defined as abstinence for a minimum of 6 months as determined by biochemical validation. We will include trials identified by previous reviews and search relevant databases for newly published trials as well as contacting study authors to identify unpublished information. We will conduct fixed-effect and random-effect meta-analyses for each pairwise comparison of treatments and outcome; where these estimates differ, we will consider reasons for heterogeneity, quantified using the between-study variance (τ2). For each outcome, we will construct a NMA in a Bayesian framework which will be compared with the pair-wise results, allowing us to rank treatments. The effectiveness estimates from the NMA will be entered into a probabilistic economic model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this evidence synthesis study as it involves analysis of secondary data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies. The review will make an important contribution to the knowledge base around the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines. Results will be disseminated to the general public, healthcare practitioners and clinicians, academics, industry and policy makers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016041302.

Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive tasks are typically viewed as effortful, frustrating, and repetitive, which often leads to participant disengagement. This, in turn, may negatively impact data quality and/or reduce intervention effects. However, gamification may provide a possible solution. If game design features can be incorporated into cognitive tasks without undermining their scientific value, then data quality, intervention effects, and participant engagement may be improved. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to explore and evaluate the ways in which gamification has already been used for cognitive training and assessment purposes. We hope to answer 3 questions: (1) Why have researchers opted to use gamification? (2) What domains has gamification been applied in? (3) How successful has gamification been in cognitive research thus far? METHODS: We systematically searched several Web-based databases, searching the titles, abstracts, and keywords of database entries using the search strategy (gamif* OR game OR games) AND (cognit* OR engag* OR behavi* OR health* OR attention OR motiv*). Searches included papers published in English between January 2007 and October 2015. RESULTS: Our review identified 33 relevant studies, covering 31 gamified cognitive tasks used across a range of disorders and cognitive domains. We identified 7 reasons for researchers opting to gamify their cognitive training and testing. We found that working memory and general executive functions were common targets for both gamified assessment and training. Gamified tests were typically validated successfully, although mixed-domain measurement was a problem. Gamified training appears to be highly engaging and does boost participant motivation, but mixed effects of gamification on task performance were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneous study designs and typically small sample sizes highlight the need for further research in both gamified training and testing. Nevertheless, careful application of gamification can provide a way to develop engaging and yet scientifically valid cognitive assessments, and it is likely worthwhile to continue to develop gamified cognitive tasks in the future.

Variation in health warning effectiveness on cigarette packs: a need for regulation?

The Tobacco Products Directive allows the possibility of strategic placement of health warnings on cigarette packs by manufacturers to reduce overall warning effectiveness. Information regarding health warning effectiveness was assessed in an online survey, and the prevalence of warnings on cigarette packs was assessed in a shop survey. Although we find no evidence of a strong correlation between health warning effectiveness ratings and their frequency on cigarette packs (r = -0.17, P = 0.56), there may be other ways this possibility is exploited. We suggest that this potential loophole is addressed and monitoring of the placement of health warnings on cigarette packs is continued.

What are the effects of varenicline compared with nicotine replacement therapy on long-term smoking cessation and clinically important outcomes? Protocol for a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is a major avoidable cause of ill-health and premature death. Treatments that help patients successfully quit smoking have an important effect on health and life expectancy. Varenicline is a medication that can help smokers successfully quit smoking. However, there are concerns that it may cause adverse effects, such as increase in the occurrence of depression, self-harm and suicide and cardiovascular disease. In this study we aim to examine the effects of varenicline versus other smoking cessation pharmacotherapies on smoking cessation, health service use, all-cause and cause-specific mortality and physical and mental health conditions. METHODS: In this project we will investigate the effects of varenicline compared to nicotine replacement therapies on: (1) long-term smoking cessation and whether these effects differ by area level deprivation; and (2) the following clinically-important outcomes: rate of general practice and hospital attendance; all-cause mortality and death due to diseases of the respiratory system and cardiovascular disease; and a primary care diagnosis of respiratory illness, myocardial infarction or depression and anxiety. The study is based on a cohort of patients prescribed these smoking cessation medications from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We will use three methods to overcome confounding: multivariable adjusted Cox regression, propensity score matched Cox regression, and instrumental variable regression. The total expected sample size for analysis will be at least 180,000. Follow-up will end with the earliest of either an 'event' or censoring due to the end of registration or death. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for this study. This project has been approved by the CPRD's Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC). We will disseminate our findings via publications in international peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international conferences.

The association of rs1051730 genotype on adherence to and consumption of prescribed nicotine replacement therapy dose during a smoking cessation attempt.

INTRODUCTION: While nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is an effective pharmacological smoking cessation treatment, its efficacy is influenced by adherence to and consumption of the prescribed dose. The genetic variant rs1051730 in the nicotinic receptor gene cluster CHRNA5-A3-B4 influences smoking quantity. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of rs1051730 genotype on adherence to and consumption of NRT prescription following a smoking cessation attempt. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a pharmacogenetic smoking cessation trial. Participants (n = 448) were prescribed a daily dose of NRT for four weeks post quit attempt, and monitored during weekly clinic visits. Outcome measures were NRT prescription adherence rate (%) and average daily NRT consumption (mg) at 7- and 28-days after the quit attempt. RESULTS: An association between rs1051730 genotype and both outcome measures was observed at 7-days after the quit date. Each copy of the minor allele corresponded to a 2.9% decrease in adherence to prescribed NRT dose (P = 0.044), and a 1.0mg decrease in daily NRT consumption (P = 0.026). Adjusting for number of cigarettes smoked during this period only slightly attenuated these associations. There was no clear statistical evidence of an association between genotype and adherence or consumption at 28-days. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate the impact of rs1051730 genotype on consumption of and adherence to NRT prescription during a smoking cessation attempt. We observed an association between this variant and both outcome measures at 7-days; however, this was only moderate. These findings require replication in an independent sample.

Adolescent cannabis and tobacco use and educational outcomes at age 16: birth cohort study.

AIMS: To investigate the relationship between cannabis and tobacco use by age 15 and subsequent educational outcomes. DESIGN: Birth cohort study. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: The sample was drawn from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children; a core sample of 1155 individuals had complete information on all the variables. MEASUREMENTS: The main exposures were cannabis and tobacco use at age 15 assessed in clinic by computer-assisted questionnaire and serum cotinine. The main outcomes were performance in standardized assessments at 16 [Key Stage 4, General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE)] in English and mathematics (mean scores), completion of five or more assessments at grade C level or higher and leaving school having achieved no qualifications. Analyses were sequentially adjusted for multiple covariates using a hierarchical approach. Covariates considered were: maternal substance use (ever tobacco or cannabis use, alcohol use above recommended limits); life course socio-economic position (family occupational class, maternal education, family income); child sex; month and year of birth; child educational attainment prior to age 11 (Key Stage 2); child substance use (tobacco, alcohol and cannabis) prior to age 15 and child conduct disorder. FINDINGS: In fully adjusted models both cannabis and tobacco use at age 15 were associated with subsequent adverse educational outcomes. In general, the dose-response effect seen was consistent across all educational outcomes assessed. Weekly cannabis use was associated negatively with English GCSE results [grade point difference (GPD), -5.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -8.34, -3.53] and with mathematics GCSE results (GPD, -6.91, 95% CI = -9.92, -3.89). Daily tobacco smoking was associated negatively with English GCSE (GPD, -11.90, 95% CI = -13.47, -10.33) and with mathematics GCSE (GPD, -16.72, 95% CI = -18.57, -14.86). The greatest attenuation of these effects was seen on adjustment for other substance use and conduct disorder. Following adjustment, tobacco appeared to have a consistently stronger effect than cannabis. CONCLUSIONS: Both cannabis and tobacco use in adolescence are associated strongly with subsequent adverse educational outcomes. Given the non-specific patterns of association seen and the attenuation of estimates on adjustment, it is possible that these effects arise through non-causal mechanisms, although a causal explanation cannot be discounted. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.

Nicotine patch preloading for smoking cessation (the preloading trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of nicotine replacement therapy before quitting smoking is called nicotine preloading. Standard smoking cessation protocols suggest commencing nicotine replacement therapy only on the first day of quitting smoking (quit day) aiming to reduce withdrawal symptoms and craving. However, other, more successful smoking cessation pharmacotherapies are used prior to the quit day as well as after. Nicotine preloading could improve quit rates by reducing satisfaction from smoking prior to quitting and breaking the association between smoking and reward. A systematic literature review suggests that evidence for the effectiveness of preloading is inconclusive and further trials are needed. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a study protocol for a multicenter, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial based in the United Kingdom, enrolling 1786 smokers who want to quit, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment program, and sponsored by the University of Oxford. Participants will primarily be recruited through general practices and smoking cessation clinics, and randomized (1:1) either to use 21 mg nicotine patches, or not, for four weeks before quitting, whilst smoking as normal. All participants will be referred to receive standard smoking cessation service support. Follow-ups will take place at one week, four weeks, six months and 12 months after quit day. The primary outcome will be prolonged, biochemically verified six-month abstinence. Additional outcomes will include point prevalence abstinence and abstinence of four-week and 12-month duration, side effects, costs of treatment, and markers of potential mediators and moderators of the preloading effect. DISCUSSION: This large trial will add substantially to evidence on the effectiveness of nicotine preloading, but also on its cost effectiveness and potential mediators, which have not been investigated in detail previously. A range of recruitment strategies have been considered to try and compensate for any challenges encountered in recruiting the large sample, and the multicentre design means that knowledge can be shared between recruitment teams. The pragmatic study design means that results will give a realistic estimate of the success of the intervention if it were to be rolled out as part of standard smoking cessation service practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33031001. Registered 27 April 2012.