Do Australians use the prescription pathway when using nicotine vaping products to quit smoking?

BACKGROUND: In Australia, nicotine vaping products (NVPs) are only legally available to those with a prescription from a doctor. We investigated the proportion of people using NVPs to quit smoking who had a prescription, and whether this increased following regulatory changes in 2021 that strengthened the prescription requirement. METHODS: Australian data from the 2018, 2020 and 2022 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Project Survey were analysed using GEE models with Poisson regressions to analyze differences between years. Data from participants who reported making a quit attempt in the previous two years and reported use of NVPs on their last quit attempt were included (480 observations across 418 individuals). Participants reported whether they had a prescription for NVPs on their last quit attempt. In 2022, they were also asked whether they sourced their prescription from their usual medical practice. RESULTS: Among those using NVPs for a quit attempt, use with a prescription increased significantly from 2020 to 2022 (IRR = 0.35 (0.17-0.73), p = .005) but was still low at 16.5 % (95 % CI 11.4-23.1). In 2022, among the small number who reported getting a prescription for NVPs, 27 % reported getting it from their regular practice; the remainder from a specialist online doctor service. CONCLUSION: There was a modest increase in obtaining a prescription among those who used NVPs for their last quit attempt after regulations were strengthened, however most NVP use for quitting was without a prescription.

Smoking, nicotine and pregnancy 2 (SNAP2) trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve adherence to nicotine replacement therapy during pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking during pregnancy is harmful to unborn babies, infants and women. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is offered as the usual stop-smoking support in the UK. However, this is often used in insufficient doses, intermittently or for too short a time to be effective. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) explores whether a bespoke intervention, delivered in pregnancy, improves adherence to NRT and is effective and cost-effective for promoting smoking cessation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm parallel-group RCT was conducted for pregnant women aged ≥16 years and who smoke ≥1 daily cigarette (pre-pregnancy smoked ≥5) and who agree to use NRT in an attempt to quit. Recruitment is from antenatal care settings and via social media adverts. Participants are randomised using blocked randomisation with varying block sizes, stratified by gestational age (<14 or ≥14 weeks) to receive: (1) usual care (UC) for stop smoking support or (2) UC plus an intervention to increase adherence to NRT, called 'Baby, Me and NRT' (BMN), comprising adherence counselling, automated tailored text messages, a leaflet and website. The primary outcome is biochemically validated smoking abstinence at or around childbirth, measured from 36 weeks gestation. Secondary outcomes include NRT adherence, other smoking measures and birth outcomes. Questionnaires collect follow-up data augmented by medical record information. We anticipate quit rates of 10% and 16% in the control and intervention groups, respectively (risk ratio=1.6). By recruiting 1320 participants, the trial should have 90% power (alpha=5%) to detect this intervention effect. An economic analysis will use the Economics of Smoking in Pregnancy model to determine cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by Bloomsbury National Health Service's Research Ethics Committee (21/LO/0123). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated to the public, funders, relevant practice/policy representatives, researchers and participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16830506. PROTOCOL VERSION: 5.0, 10 Oct 2023.

Reducing tobacco use in substance use treatment: The California tobacco free initiative.

BACKGROUND: People in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment have a smoking prevalence that is five times higher than the national average. California funded the Tobacco Free for Recovery Initiative, designed to support programs in implementing tobacco-free grounds and increasing smoking cessation services. In the first cohort of the initiative (2018-2020) client smoking prevalence decreased from 54.2% to 26.6%. The current study examined whether similar findings would be replicated with a later cohort of programs (2020-2022). METHOD: Cross-sectional survey data were collected from clients in 11 residential SUD treatment programs at baseline (n = 185) and at post intervention (n = 227). Multivariate logistic regression assessed change over time in smoking prevalence, tobacco use behaviors, and receipt of cessation services across the two timepoints. RESULTS: Client smoking prevalence decreased from 60.3 % to 40.5 % (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 0.46, 95 % CI = 0.27, 0.78; p = 0.004). Current smokers and those who quit while in treatment reported an increase in nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)/pharmacotherapy from baseline to post intervention (31.9 % vs 45.6 %; AOR = 2.22, 95 % CI = 1.08, 4.58; p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Like the first cohort, the Tobacco Free for Recovery initiative was associated with decreased client smoking prevalence and an increase in NRT/pharmacotherapy. These findings strengthen the evidence that similar initiatives may be effective in reducing smoking prevalence among people in SUD treatment.

Economic Evaluation of Enhanced vs Standard Varenicline Treatment for Tobacco Cessation.

Importance: Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and illness in the US. Identifying cost-effective smoking cessation treatment may increase the likelihood that health systems deliver such treatment to their patients who smoke. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard vs enhanced varenicline use (extended varenicline treatment or varenicline in combination with nicotine replacement therapy) among individuals trying to quit smoking. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation assesses the Quitting Using Intensive Treatments Study (QUITS), which randomized 1251 study participants who smoked into 4 conditions: (1) 12-week varenicline monotherapy (n = 315); (2) 24-week varenicline monotherapy (n = 311); (3) 12-week varenicline combination treatment with nicotine replacement therapy patch (n = 314); or (4) 24-week varenicline combination treatment with nicotine replacement therapy patch (n = 311). Study enrollment occurred in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, between November 11, 2017, and July 2, 2020. Statistical analysis took place from May to October 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence abstinence (biochemically confirmed with exhaled carbon monoxide level ≤5 ppm) at 52 weeks. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), or cost per additional person who quit smoking, was calculated using decision tree analysis based on abstinence and cost for each arm of the trial. Results: Of the 1251 participants, mean (SD) age was 49.1 (11.9) years, 675 (54.0%) were women, and 881 (70.4%) completed the 52-week follow-up. Tobacco cessation at 52 weeks was 25.1% (79 of 315) for 12-week monotherapy, 24.4% (76 of 311) for 24-week monotherapy, 23.6% (74 of 314) for 12-week combination therapy, and 25.1% (78 of 311) for 24-week combination therapy, respectively. The total mean (SD) cost was $1175 ($365) for 12-week monotherapy, $1374 ($412) for 12-week combination therapy, $2022 ($813) for 24-week monotherapy, and $2118 ($1058) for 24-week combination therapy. The ICER for 12-week varenicline monotherapy was $4681 per individual who quit smoking and $4579 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) added. The ICER for 24-week varenicline combination therapy relative to 12-week monotherapy was $92 000 000 per additional individual who quit smoking and $90 000 000 (95% CI, $15 703 to dominated or more costly and less efficacious) per additional QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation of standard vs enhanced varenicline treatment for smoking cessation suggests that 12-week varenicline monotherapy was the most cost-effective treatment option at the commonly cited threshold of $100 000/QALY. This study provides patients, health care professionals, and other stakeholders with increased understanding of the health and economic impact of more intensive varenicline treatment options.

Incremental net monetary benefit of using varenicline for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies.

AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of varenicline compared with behaviour support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), behaviour support alone and unaided cessation in adult smokers making a first-time attempt to quit. METHODS: A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic. RESULTS: Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSION: Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.

'Quitlink': Outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of peer researcher facilitated referral to a tailored quitline tobacco treatment for people receiving mental health services.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a tailored quitline tobacco treatment ('Quitlink') among people receiving support for mental health conditions. METHODS: We employed a prospective, cluster-randomised, open, blinded endpoint design to compare a control condition to our 'Quitlink' intervention. Both conditions received a brief intervention delivered by a peer researcher. Control participants received no further intervention. Quitlink participants were referred to a tailored 8-week quitline intervention delivered by dedicated Quitline counsellors plus combination nicotine replacement therapy. The primary outcome was self-reported 6 months continuous abstinence from end of treatment (8 months from baseline). Secondary outcomes included additional smoking outcomes, mental health symptoms, substance use and quality of life. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted. RESULTS: In total, 110 participants were recruited over 26 months and 91 had confirmed outcomes at 8 months post baseline. There was a difference in self-reported prolonged abstinence at 8-month follow-up between Quitlink (16%, n = 6) and control (2%, n = 1) conditions, which was not statistically significant (OR = 8.33 [0.52, 132.09] p = 0.131 available case). There was a significant difference in favour of the Quitlink condition on 7-day point prevalence at 2 months (OR = 8.06 [1.27, 51.00] p = 0.027 available case). Quitlink costs AU$9231 per additional quit achieved. CONCLUSION: The Quitlink intervention did not result in significantly higher rates of prolonged abstinence at 8 months post baseline. However, engagement rates and satisfaction with the 'Quitlink' intervention were high. While underpowered, the Quitlink intervention shows promise. A powered trial to determine its effectiveness for improving long-term cessation is warranted.

Monday-Enhanced CEASE Program for Underserved Ethnic Minorities: a Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Due to the persistence of tobacco-related health disparities in the U.S., there is a need for innovative strategies to reach the underserved ethnic minority populations who are most at risk. As contemplations for health behavior modification tend to surge on Mondays, we explored the feasibility and effect of a Monday-enhanced smoking cessation program on quitting outcomes in a low-income ethnic minority community. AIMS: To compare a Monday-enhanced with a standard Communities Engaged and Advocating for a Smoke-free Environment (CEASE) program and understand the overall experiences of participants in the program. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, affordable housing complexes (n = 4) and a church were randomly assigned either a Monday-enhanced (n = 3) or standard (n = 2) CEASE smoking cessation program. CEASE comprised twelve weekly group counseling sessions facilitated by trained peer motivators plus nicotine replacement products. Participants in the Monday-enhanced arm were encouraged to pick Mondays as a quitting day. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected during the program and at 3-month post-graduation. RESULTS: Seventy-seven participants were enrolled in the study arms. In both groups combined, tobacco consumption reduced from 7.7 to 5.6 cig/day (mean reduction, 2.1; 95% CI: 0.9 to 5.1, p = 0.08). Although no significant difference in quit rate was observed between the two arms, more participants completed the follow-up survey in the Monday-enhanced than standard CEASE program [82.4% vs. 36.0%, p < 0.05]. While qualitative data suggested an overall satisfaction of participants with the program, motivation for quitting was higher in the Monday-enhanced CEASE program compared to the standard CEASE program. CONCLUSION: The Monday-enhanced program is promising and may enhance participants' engagement and willingness to quit smoking, particularly in low-income ethnic minority communities. Further research should include larger sample sizes to better assess the efficacy of a Monday-enhanced program across diverse populations.

Implementation of Quitline Financial Incentives to Increase Counseling Sessions Among Adults Who Use Menthol Tobacco Products.

Since 2017, the Vermont Tobacco Control Program (VTCP) has worked to reduce the impact of flavored tobacco products on Vermonters. With the proposed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars and proposed legislation banning sales of all menthol and flavored tobacco products in Vermont, VTCP prioritized resources to support cessation among Vermonters who use menthol tobacco products. In March 2021, VTCP began offering a tailored quitline protocol for adults who use menthol tobacco, including financial incentives, for completed coaching sessions. From March 2021 to May 2022, 66 quitline callers enrolled in the menthol incentive protocol, representing 8% of all quitline callers and 25% of participants in the state's quitline incentive programs. A greater proportion of callers in the menthol incentive program completed three or more quitline calls (58% vs. 38%) and enrolled in phone and text support (61% vs. 32%). Quitline callers enrolled in any incentive protocols (menthol, Medicaid/uninsured, or pregnant) were more likely to request one or two forms of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Quitlines remain an effective, evidence-based method of tobacco cessation, especially in reaching vulnerable populations. Given the targeted marketing of menthol brands to Black and African American populations, LGBTQ+ populations, youth, and neighborhoods with lower incomes, addressing menthol cigarette use is key to improving health equity and health of Vermonters. Early data indicates that the use of financial incentives can increase engagement with a state quitline among menthol tobacco users through greater completion of cessation coaching calls, enrollment in text message support, and NRT usage.

Partner-Involved Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation in Dual-Smoker Couples: A Randomized Pilot Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Members of dual-smoker couples (in which both partners smoke) are unlikely to try to quit smoking and are likely to relapse if they do make an attempt. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility, tolerability, and preliminary outcomes of dyadic adaptations of financial incentive treatments (FITs) to promote smoking cessation in dual-smoker couples. AIMS AND METHODS: We enrolled 95 dual-smoker couples (N = 190) in a three-arm feasibility RCT comparing two partner-involved FITs (single vs. dual incentives) against a no-treatment control condition. Participants in all conditions were offered nicotine replacement and psychoeducation. A 3-month follow-up provided information about retention, tolerability (ie, self-reported benefits and costs of the study), and preliminary efficacy (ie, program completion, quit attempts, point-prevalent abstinence, and joint quitting). RESULTS: Results suggest dyadic adaptations were feasible to implement (89% retention rate) and highly tolerable for participants (p < .001). Neither feasibility nor tolerability varied across the treatment arm. Preliminary efficacy outcomes indicated partner-involved FITs have promise for increasing smoking cessation in dual-smoker couples (OR = 2.36-13.06). CONCLUSIONS: Dyadic implementations of FITs are feasible to implement and tolerable to participants. IMPLICATIONS: The evidence that dyadic adaptations of FITs were feasible and tolerable, and the positive preliminary efficacy outcomes suggest that adequately powered RCTs formally evaluating the efficacy of dyadic adaptations of FITs for dual-smoker couples are warranted.

'The dark before the dawn': the 2021 British Thoracic Society Audit of the treatment of tobacco dependency in acute trusts.

Smoking remains the single largest cause of preventable death, disability and health inequality. Smoking tobacco directly contributes to over 500 000 hospital admissions each year, making hospitals an important location to optimise treatment for tobacco dependency. The third British Thoracic Society Tobacco Dependency Audit was undertaken to determine how effectively national standards for treating tobacco-dependent smokers have been implemented and assess if any progress has been made from previous audits. Data on 14579 patients from 119 hospitals revealed 21% of patients were current smokers, 45% were offered very brief advice and 5% prescribed combination nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline. Only 9% completed a consultation with a specialist tobacco dependency practitioner during their inpatient stay and fewer than 1% of smokers were abstinent at 4 weeks following discharge. Clinical leadership of tobacco dependency services was deficient, and staff were ill equipped in supporting current smokers in their efforts to quit with only 50% of trusts offering regular smoking cessation training. There has been little meaningful improvement from previous audits and there remains woefully inadequate provision of tobacco dependency treatment for patients who smoke. The National Health Service (NHS) Long Term Plan has committed substantial, new funding to the NHS to ensure every patient that smokes admitted to hospital will be offered evidence-based support and treatment for tobacco dependency. The findings of this audit highlight the urgency with which this programme must be implemented to tackle the greatest cause of premature death in the UK and to achieve the wider well-recognised benefits for the healthcare system.

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.

Goal-directed versus outcome-based financial incentives for smoking cessation among low-income, hospitalised patients: rationale and design of the Financial Incentives for Smoking Treatment II (FIESTA II) randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the USA. Low utilisation of treatments for smoking cessation remains a major barrier for reducing smoking rates. Financial incentives represent an innovative approach to increasing use of therapies for smoking cessation. This paper will describe the rationale and design of the Financial Incentives for Smoking Treatment II (FIESTA II) study, a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of goal-directed and outcome-based financial incentives to promote smoking cessation among hospitalised smokers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are recruiting adult participants who smoked tobacco in the 30 days prior to initial interview and are contemplating quitting smoking. These participants will come from two hospitals in underserved communities in New York City and Los Angeles. They will be randomised into one of three arms. The first arm consists of goal-directed financial incentives plus enhanced usual care, which includes hospital-directed information about quitting smoking, nicotine replacement therapy and referral to a Quitline. The second arm involves outcome-based financial incentives plus enhanced usual care. The third arm consists of enhanced usual care alone. Multiple phone interviews with the participants will be completed after randomisation to assess smoking cessation. Participants will earn $20 for each follow-up interview completed and $30 for each smoking cessation test completed. Those who are randomised to the financial incentive groups can earn an additional $700. The participants in the outcome-based group will receive payments solely for exhibiting cessation, whereas the participants in the goal-based group are also eligible for receiving payments after meeting milestones such as speaking with a helpline coach. ETHICS: Human research protection committees at New York University School of Medicine and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) David Geffen School of Medicine granted ethics approval.Protocol number: IRB#19-000 084. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03979885.

Randomized clinical trial examining financial incentives for smoking cessation among mothers of young children and possible impacts on child secondhand smoke exposure.

This randomized clinical trial examined whether financial-incentives increase smoking cessation among mothers of young children and potential impacts on child secondhand-smoke exposure (SHSe). 198 women-child dyads were enrolled and assigned to one of three treatment conditions: best practices (BP, N = 68), best practices plus financial incentives (BP + FI, N = 63), or best practices, financial incentives, and nicotine replacement therapy (BP + FI + NRT, N = 67). The trial was completed in Vermont, USA between June 2015 and October 2020. BP entailed staff referral to the state tobacco quitline; financial incentives entailed mothers earning vouchers exchangeable for retail items for 12 weeks contingent on biochemically-verified smoking abstinence; NRT involved mothers receiving 10 weeks of free transdermal nicotine and nicotine lozenges/gum. Baseline, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 48-week assessments were conducted. Primary outcomes were maternal 7-day point-prevalence abstinence and child SHSe through the 24-week assessment with the 48-week assessment exploratory. Results were analyzed using mixed model repeated measures for categorical data. Odds of maternal abstinence were greater among mothers in BP + FI and BP + FI + NRT compared to BP at the 6- and 12-week assessments (ORs ≥ 7.30; 95% CIs: 2.35-22.71); only abstinence in BP + FI remained greater than BP at the 24-week assessment (OR = 2.95; 95% CIs: 1.06-8.25). Abstinence did not differ significantly between treatment conditions at the 48-week assesssment. There was a significant effect of treatment condition (F[2109] = 3.64, P = .029) on SHSe with levels in BP and BP + FI significantly below BP + FI + NRT (ts[109] ≥ -2.30, Ps ≤ 0.023). Financial incentives for smoking abstinence are efficacious for increasing maternal cessation but that alone was insufficient for reducing child SHSe. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT05740098.

Methods used to quit vaping among adolescents and associations with perceived risk, addiction, and socio-economic status.

Despite widespread evidence suggesting that e-cigarettes are harmful to youth, the prevalence of adolescent vaping continues to rise. The first aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine which methods adolescents have previously used to quit vaping and their interest in using various methods to quit vaping in the future. The second aim was to investigate the associations between vaping-related characteristics and (1) motivation to quit vaping and (2) previous use of pharmacological methods to quit vaping or previous use of unassisted quitting. Participants were 185 current or former vapers, aged 14-19 (M age = 16.9 years, SD = 1.1; 52% female), recruited online from different U.S. regions. Data were collected through online questionnaires. Most participants reported at least one prior attempt to quit vaping (81.3%). Unassisted quitting was the most prevalent method to quit vaping (78.4%), followed by "advice from a friend" (51.9%). Participants were interested in using a variety of methods for quitting vaping in the future, including medication (28.8%), and mobile apps (34.6%). Greater perceived harm of vaping was significantly associated with motivation to quit vaping, while greater perceived risk of addiction and higher SES were significantly associated with lifetimeuse of nicotine replacement to quit vaping. Adolescents may be open to trying methods to quit that are different from what they have used previously. These findings could help direct resources toward the development of vaping cessation programs that are acceptable to adolescents.

Effectiveness of personalized smoking cessation intervention based on ecological momentary assessment for smokers who prefer unaided quitting: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA)-based smoking cessation intervention may help personalize intervention for smokers who prefer to quit smoking unaided. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of EMA-based phone counseling and instant messaging for smoking cessation. Methods/design: This is a two-arm, accessor-blinded, simple individual randomized controlled trial (allocation ratio 1:1). Participants will be recruited from community sites and online platforms in Hong Kong. Interventions will be delivered via a phone call and instant messaging. Current adult smokers who (1) self-report no intention to use smoking cessation services and medication in the coming month and (2) have not used smoking cessation services or nicotine replacement therapy in the past 7 days will be recruited. Recruited participants will be randomized to intervention or control groups via an online randomizer. All participants will be required to complete EMAs (five times per day for 7 consecutive days). The intervention group (n = 220) will receive a nurse-led brief phone counseling immediately after the 1-week EMAs and 10-week EMA-based advice via instant messaging applications (e.g., WhatsApp, WeChat). The 10-week EMA-based advice covers a summary of the 1-week EMAs, and tailored cessation support focused on personalized smoking triggers. The control group (n = 220) will not receive any intervention during the same period. The primary outcomes are participants' progression toward smoking cessation assessed by the Incremental Behavior Change toward Smoking Cessation (IBC-S) and biochemically validated abstinence at the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include self-reported and biochemically validated tobacco abstinence at the 6-month follow-up. Discussion: The findings will provide evidence that the EMA-based tailored smoking cessation intervention can be adapted as a new health promotion strategy for current smokers who are unwilling to use smoking cessation aids. Clinical trial registration: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05212220, identifier: NCT05212220.

Efficacy of a Smoking Cessation Program for Underserved Ethnic Minority Communities: Results of a Smoking Cessation Trial.

Objectives: Using a participatory research approach, this study reports the efficacy of the Communities Engaged and Advocating for a Smoke-free Environment (CEASE)-4 intervention offered by the local peers. Methods: CEASE-4 is a theory-based tobacco-cessation intervention, tailored to the needs of underserved populations. 842 tobacco users self-selected into: a) self-help (n = 472), b) single-session class (n = 163), and c) four-session class (n = 207). While self-help group only received educational materials, curriculum for other arms was built on the social cognitive, motivational interviewing, and trans-theoretical- frameworks. Participants could also receive nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Outcome was self-reported smoking cessation measured 12 weeks after completion of the intervention, validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) test. Results: Quit rate was statistically different across groups, with highest quit rate in four-session and lowest quit rate in self-help arm. Cessation rates at follow up (12 weeks after completion of the intervention) were 2.3% in the self-help arm, 6.1% in the single-session arm and 13.0% in the four-session arm. Conclusion: While theory-based smoking cessation services are effective for underserved populations, four-session curriculum might be superior to a single session program.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Potential Impact of a Novel mHealth App for Smokers Ambivalent About Quitting: Randomized Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Most smokers are ambivalent about quitting-they want to quit someday, but not now. Interventions are needed that can engage ambivalent smokers, build their motivation for quitting, and support future quit attempts. Mobile health (mHealth) apps offer a cost-effective platform for such interventions, but research is needed to inform their optimal design and assess their acceptability, feasibility, and potential effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential impact of a novel mHealth app for smokers who want to quit smoking someday but are ambivalent about quitting in the near term. METHODS: We enrolled adults across the United States who smoked more than 10 cigarettes a day and were ambivalent about quitting (n=60). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 versions of the GEMS app: standard care (SC) versus enhanced care (EC). Both had a similar design and identical evidence-based, best-practice smoking cessation advice and resources, including the ability to earn free nicotine patches. EC also included a series of exercises called experiments designed to help ambivalent smokers clarify their goals, strengthen their motivation, and learn important behavioral skills for changing smoking behavior without making a commitment to quit. Outcomes were analyzed using automated app data and self-reported surveys at 1 and 3 months post enrollment. RESULTS: Participants who installed the app (57/60, 95%) were largely female, White, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and highly nicotine dependent. As expected, key outcomes trended in favor of the EC group. Compared to SC users, EC participants had greater engagement (mean sessions 19.9 for EC vs 7.3 for SC). An intentional quit attempt was reported by 39.3% (11/28) of EC users and 37.9% (11/29) of SC users. Seven-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at the 3-month follow-up was reported by 14.7% (4/28) of EC users and 6.9% (2/29) of SC users. Among participants who earned a free trial of nicotine replacement therapy based on their app usage, 36.4% (8/22) of EC participants and 11.1% (2/18) of SC participants requested the treatment. A total of 17.9% (5/28) of EC and 3.4% (1/29) of SC participants used an in-app feature to access a free tobacco quitline. Other metrics were also promising. EC participants completed an average of 6.9 (SD 3.1) out of 9 experiments. Median helpfulness ratings for completed experiments ranged from 3 to 4 on a 5-point scale. Finally, satisfaction with both app versions was very good (mean 4.1 on a 5-point Likert scale) and 95.3% (41/43) of all respondents would recommend their app version to others. CONCLUSIONS: Ambivalent smokers were receptive to the app-based intervention, but the EC version, which combined best-practice cessation advice with self-paced, experiential exercises, was associated with greater use and evidence of behavior change. Further development and evaluation of the EC program is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04560868; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04560868.

The efficacy of tobacco cessation treatment for African American adults: a systematic review.

Despite proliferation of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments, African American adults still suffer higher rates of tobacco-related diseases than White adults. Although tobacco cessation treatment is efficacious, there is a need to reassess the efficacy of tobacco cessation treatment for African American adults. Previous reviews of tobacco cessation treatment studies conducted through 2007 among African American adults highlight the limited research in this area and inconsistent findings on treatment characteristics impacting efficacy. This systematic review examined the efficacy of combined behavioral and pharmacological tobacco cessation treatment for African American adults. Database searches were used to identify studies examining tobacco cessation treatment for predominantly African American samples (>50%). Eligible studies were completed between 2007 and 2021 and (i) involved randomization comparing active combined treatment to a control comparison group and (ii) reported abstinence outcomes at 6 and/or 12 months. Ten studies met inclusion criteria. Active treatment groups typically consisted of a combination of nicotine replacement therapy and behavioral counseling. Abstinence rates for African American adults ranged from 10.0% to 34% in active treatment groups compared to 0.0%-40% in comparison control groups. Our results support the efficacy of combined treatment for tobacco cessation among African American adults. However, cessation rates for African American adults found in this review are lower than those in the general adult population (15%-88%). Additionally, our findings highlight the limited number of studies examining African American tobacco cessation rates and testing of tailored treatment for this population.

African American adults are more likely to develop disease when using tobacco products than other adults. Previous reviews of literature assessing tobacco cessation treatment have been conducted on research until 2007. Therefore, we assessed how well tobacco cessation treatments that were tested 2007­2021 work to decrease tobacco use for this population. We found that 10 studies tested tobacco cessation treatment with majority African American participants, in comparison to more standard treatment. Overall, tobacco cessation treatment that combines behavioral and pharmacological approaches decreases tobacco use for African American adults. However, quit rates among African American adults are lower than those found in the general population. Our findings indicate that very few studies have focused on African American adult tobacco cessation treatment outcomes, which has potentially contributed to health inequity.

Should Nicotine Replacement Therapy be Provided Free of Charge? A Cost-Utility Analysis in Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) during an attempt to quit smoking increases the likelihood of success by about 55%. However, out-of-pocket payment for NRT can hinder its use. AIMS AND METHODS: This study aims therefore to assess the cost-effectiveness of subsidizing NRT in Sweden. A homogeneous cohort-based Markov model was used to assess the lifetime costs and effects of subsidized NRT from a payer and societal perspective. Data to populate the model were retrieved from the literature, and selected parameters were varied in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess robustness of model outputs. Costs are presented in USD, year 2021. RESULTS: A 12-week treatment with NRT was estimated to cost USD 632 (474-790) per person. From a societal perspective, subsidized NRT was a cost-saving alternative in 98.5% of the simulations. NRT is cost-saving across all ages, but the health and economic gains are somewhat larger among younger smokers from a societal perspective. When a payer perspective was used, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 14 480 (11 721-18 515) USD per QALY which was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of 50 000 USD per QALY in 100 % of the simulations. Results were robust with realistic changes in the inputs during scenario and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Subsidizing NRT is potentially a cost-saving smoking cessation strategy from a societal perspective and cost-effective from a payer perspective. IMPLICATIONS: This study found that subsidizing NRT is potentially a cost-saving smoking cessation policy alternative compared to current practice from a societal perspective. From a healthcare payer perspective, subsidizing NRT is estimated to cost USD 14 480 to gain an extra QALY. NRT is cost-saving across all ages, but the health and economic gains are somewhat larger among younger smokers from a societal perspective. Moreover, subsidizing NRT removes the financial barriers that are mostly faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers which might reduce health inequalities. Thus, future economic evaluations should further investigate the health inequality impacts with methods that are more suitable for this.

How has Expenditure on Nicotine Products Changed in a Fast-Evolving Marketplace? A Representative Population Survey in England, 2018-2022.

INTRODUCTION: In the last 5 years, there has been a dramatic shift in the types of nicotine products being purchased. This study aimed to estimate how much users spend on types of cigarettes and alternative nicotine products (e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches) and describe changes between 2018 and 2022. AIMS AND METHODS: Monthly representative cross-sectional survey in England. 10 323 adults who smoked cigarettes or used alternative nicotine reported their average weekly expenditure on these products, adjusted for inflation. RESULTS: Smokers spent £20.49 [95% CI = 20.09-20.91] on cigarettes each week (£27.66 [26.84-28.50] and £15.96 [15.49-16.28] among those who mainly smoked manufactured and hand-rolled cigarettes, respectively), e-cigarette users spent £6.30 [5.99-6.55] (£8.41 [7.17-9.78], £6.42 [5.58-7.39], and £5.93 [5.64-6.30] among those who mainly used disposable, pod, and refillable devices, respectively), NRT users £6.11 [5.53-6.69], and heated tobacco users £13.87 [9.58-20.09]. Expenditure on cigarettes grew by 10% from September 2018 to July 2020, then fell by 10% from July 2020 to June 2022. These changes coincided with a 13% reduction in cigarette consumption and a 14% increase in the proportion mainly smoking hand-rolled cigarettes. Expenditure on e-cigarettes was stable between 2018 and late 2020, then rose by 31% up to mid-2022. Expenditure on NRT increased slowly in 2018-2020 (+4%) and more quickly thereafter (+20%). CONCLUSIONS: Inflation-adjusted expenditure on cigarettes has fallen since 2020, such that the average smoker in England currently spends the same on cigarettes each week as in 2018. This has been achieved by smoking fewer cigarettes and switching to cheaper hand-rolled cigarettes. Expenditure on alternative nicotine has increased above inflation; users spent around a third more on these products in 2022 than between 2018-2020. IMPLICATIONS: People in England continue to spend substantially more on smoking cigarettes than using alternative nicotine products. The average smoker in England spends around £13 a week (~£670 a year) more than people using only e-cigarettes or NRT. The average expenditure on manufactured cigarettes is double that of hand-rolled cigarettes.