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

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

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

Short stature and language development in the United Kingdom: a longitudinal analysis of children from the Millennium Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In low- and middle-income countries, poverty and impaired growth prevent children from meeting their cognitive developmental potential. There are few studies investigating these relationships in high-income settings. METHODS: Participants were 12,536 children born between 2000 and 2002 in the UK and participating in the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). Short stature was defined as having a height-for-age 2 or more standard deviations below the median (≤ - 2 SDS) at age 3 years. Standardized British Abilities Scales II (BAS II) language measures, used to assess language development at ages 3, 5, 7 and 11 years, were the main outcome assessed. RESULTS: Children with short stature at age 3 years (4.1%) had language development scores that were consistently lower from ages 3 to 11 years (- 0.26 standard deviations (SD) (95% CI - 0.37, - 0.15)). This effect was attenuated but remained significant after adjustment for covariates. Trajectory analysis produced four distinct patterns of language development scores (low-declining, low-improving, average and high). Multinomial logistic regression models showed that children with short stature had a higher risk of being in the low-declining group, relative to the average group (relative risk ratio (RRR) = 2.11 (95% CI 1.51, 2.95)). They were also less likely to be in the high-scoring group (RRR = 0.65 (0.52, 0.82)). Children with short stature at age 3 years who had 'caught up' by age 5 years (height-for-age ≥ 2 SDS) did not have significantly different scores from children with persistent short stature, but had a higher probability of being in the high-performing group than children without catch-up growth (RRR = 1.84 (1.11, 3.07)). CONCLUSIONS: Short stature at age 3 years was associated with lower language development scores at ages 3 to 11 years in UK children. These associations remained significant after adjustment for socioeconomic, child and parental factors.

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) intervention: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: NHS community pharmacies provide effective smoking cessation services; however, there is scope for increasing throughput and improving quit rates. This trial examines whether the Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) intervention can improve smoker engagement to increase service throughput, retention and quitting. METHODS: This study is a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial in 60 pharmacies in England and Wales. All workers in intervention pharmacies are offered STOP training while control pharmacies provide usual care. The STOP intervention, based on behavioural and organisational theories, comprises educational sessions for staff and environmental prompts in the pharmacy. Intervention fidelity is assessed by actors visiting pharmacies posing as smokers. The primary outcome is throughput, defined as the number of smokers who join the programme, set a firm quit date and undergo at least one stop smoking treatment session, and is measured using routinely collected data. Secondary outcomes include retention and quit rates at 4 weeks and continuous abstinence at 6 months verified by salivary cotinine. Cost-effectiveness is estimated using quality-adjusted life years and the probability that the intervention is effective at different levels of willingness to pay is calculated. DISCUSSION: The trial will generate evidence to inform the public health smoking cessation strategy in England and Wales, and may help to shape service commissioning decisions. The STOP intervention model may help inform the undertaking of a range of health behaviour change tasks in community pharmacies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN16351033. Retrospectively registered on 21 March 2017.

Evaluating NHS Stop Smoking Service engagement in community pharmacies using simulated smokers: fidelity assessment of a theory-based intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Smokers are more likely to quit if they use the National Health Service (NHS) Stop Smoking Service (SSS). However, community pharmacies experience low service uptake. The Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) programme aims to address this problem by enhancing staff training using a theory-based intervention. In this study, we evaluated intervention fidelity using simulated smokers (actors) to assess smoker engagement and enactment of key intervention components by STOP trained staff. DESIGN: An observational pilot study. SETTINGS: Five community pharmacies in North East London with an NHS SSS. METHODS: Six actors, representative of East London's population, were recruited and trained to complete intervention fidelity assessments. Consenting pharmacy staff from five participating pharmacies received STOP Intervention training. Four weeks after the staff training, the actors visited the participating pharmacies posing as smokers eligible for smoking cessation support. Engagement behaviour by pharmacy staff and enactment of intervention components was assessed using a scoring tool derived from the STOP logic model (scoring range of 0-36), and contemporaneous field notes taken by actors. RESULTS: 18 of 30 completed assessments were with STOP trained staff (10/18 were counter assistants). Mean score for smoker engagement was 24.4 (SD 9.0) points for trained and 16.9 (SD 7.8) for untrained staff, respectively. NHS SSS leaflets (27/30) were the most common smoking cessation materials seen on pharmacy visits. Most trained counter staff engaged with smokers using leaflets and a few proactively offered appointments with their cessation advisors. Appropriate use of body language was reported on 26/30 occasions alongside the use of key phrases from the STOP training session (n=8). Very few pharmacy staff wore STOP promotional badges (4/30). CONCLUSIONS: STOP training may change client engagement behaviour in pharmacy staff and could improve the uptake of the NHS SSS. A cluster randomised controlled trial is currently in progress to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16351033.

Case finding and therapy for chronic viral hepatitis in primary care (HepFREE): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of viral hepatitis (hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus) in migrants is higher than among the general population in many high-income countries. We aimed to determine whether incentivising and supporting primary-care physicians in areas with a high density of migrants increases the numbers of adult migrants screened for viral hepatitis. METHODS: HepFREE was a multicentre, open, cluster-randomised controlled trial in general practices in areas of the UK with a high density of migrants (Bradford, Yorkshire, and northeast and southeast London). Participants were adult patients (aged 18 years or older) in primary care, who had been identified as a first or second generation migrant from a high-risk country. General practices were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2:2) to an opportunistic screening (control) group or to one of four targeted screening (interventional) groups: standard (ie, hospital-based) care and a standard invitation letter; standard care and an enhanced invitation letter; community care and a standard invitation letter; or community care and an enhanced invitation letter. In control screening, general practitioners (GPs) were given a teaching session on viral hepatitis and were asked to test all registered migrants. In the intervention, GPs were paid a nominal sum for setting up searches of records, reimbursed for signed consent forms, and supported by a dedicated clinician. Patients who were eligible for testing and tested positive for viral hepatitis in the intervention groups were eligible to enrol in a second embedded trial of community versus hospital based care. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients eligible for screening, the proportion of those eligible who were sent an invitation letter in the intervention groups, the uptake of viral hepatitis screening (in the intention-to-treat population), the proportion of patients who tested positive for viral hepatitis, the proportion who complied with treatment, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN54828633. FINDINGS: Recruitment and testing ran from Oct 31, 2013, to Feb 4, 2017, and each practice recruited for 18 consecutive calendar months. We approached 70 general practices in three areas with a high density of migrants, of which 63 general practices agreed to participate. Five practices withdrew and 58 practices were randomly assigned: eight to control and 50 to an intervention. In control practices, 26 046 (38·4%) of 67 820 patients who were initially registered were eligible for testing, as were 152 321 (43·3%) of 351 710 patients in the interventional groups in London and Bradford. Of 51 773 randomly selected eligible patients in the intervention groups in London and Bradford, letters were sent to 43 585 (84·2%) patients. In the eight control general practices, screening was taken up by 543 (1·7%) of 31 738 eligible participants, which included 5692 newly registered patients. However, in the 50 general practices that used the intervention, screening was taken up by 11 386 (19·5%) of 58 512 eligible participants (including 6739 newly registered patients; incidence rate ratio 3·70, 95% CI 1·30-10·51; p=0·014) and this intervention was cost-effective. 720 (4·5%) of 15 844 patients who received a standard letter versus 1032 (3·7%) of 28 095 patients who received the enhanced letter were tested (0·70, 0·38-1·31; p=0·26). In the control group, 17 patients tested positive for viral hepatitis, as did 220 patients (one with a co-infection) in the intervention groups. In the embedded study, 220 patients were randomly assigned to either hospital-based care or community care; 80 (87·9%) of 91 patients in the hospital setting complied with treatment versus 105 (81·4%) of 129 patients in the community setting. The intervention was cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds in excess of £8540. One serious adverse event (thyroiditis) was noted. INTERPRETATION: Screening migrants for viral hepatitis in primary care is effective if doctors are incentivised and supported. Community care is expensive and there is no evidence that this offers benefits in this setting or that bespoke invitation letters add value. We suggest that bespoke invitation letters should not be used, and we suggest that outreach, community-based services for migrants should not be developed. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Helpful advice and hidden expertize: pharmacy users' experiences of community pharmacy accessibility.

Background: In recent years community pharmacies have emerged as strategically important settings to deliver services aimed at promoting public health. In order to develop evidence-based approaches to public health interventions that exploit the unique accessibility of community pharmacies, it is important to determine how people experience care in this context. This study, therefore, aimed to describe how care is perceived and experienced in community pharmacies with particular focus on community pharmacy access. Methods: In-depth semi-structured interviews were used to explore the perceptions and experiences' of people using community pharmacies. Results: A total of 30 participants were interviewed. Themes specifically emerged in relation to community pharmacy access; these fell into four main categories: relationships; time; lack of awareness; and empowerment. Conclusions: The experience of developing a trusting relationship with the pharmacist is an important consideration in the context of community pharmacy accessibility. This could be an important consideration when a person uses a community pharmacy to access a public health service. There is also a perceived lack of awareness among the general public about the extended role of community pharmacy; this is a potential barrier toward people using them.

Mixed infection with cagA positive and cagA negative strains of Helicobacter pylori lowers disease burden in The Gambia.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori including strains with putatively virulent genotypes is high, whereas the H. pylori-associated disease burden is low, in Africa compared to developed countries. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of virulence-related H. pylori genotypes and their association with gastroduodenal diseases in The Gambia. METHODS AND FINDINGS: DNA extracted from biopsies and H. pylori cultures from 169 subjects with abdominal pain, dyspepsia or other gastroduodenal diseases were tested by PCR for H. pylori. The H. pylori positive samples were further tested for the cagA oncogene and vacA toxin gene. One hundred and twenty one subjects (71.6%) were H. pylori positive. The cagA gene and more toxigenic s1 and m1 alleles of the vacA gene were found in 61.2%, 76.9% and 45.5% respectively of Gambian patients harbouring H. pylori. There was a high prevalence of cagA positive strains in patients with overt gastric diseases than those with non-ulcerative dyspepsia (NUD) (p = 0.05); however, mixed infection by cagA positive and cagA negative strains was more common in patients with NUD compared to patients with gastric disease (24.5% versus 0%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the prevalence of H. pylori is high in dyspeptic patients in The Gambia and that many strains are of the putatively more virulent cagA+, vacAs1 and vacAm1 genotypes. This study has also shown significantly lower disease burden in Gambians infected with a mixture of cag-positive and cag-negative strains, relative to those containing only cag-positive or only cag-negative strains, which suggests that harbouring both cag-positive and cag-negative strains is protective.