Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA). MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Household Composition and Smoking Behavior in a Prospective Longitudinal Australian Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimates the extent to which individuals' smoking cessation and relapse patterns are associated with the smoking behavior of their household members. AIMS AND METHODS: Longitudinal data on household members' smoking behavior was sourced from a representative sample of 12 723 Australians who ever reported smoking between 2001 and 2019. Controlling for a rich set of confounders, multivariate regression analyses were used to predict the likelihood of smoking cessation and relapse given other household members' smoking status and their relationship type. The models were then used to forecast smoking prevalence over 10 years across different household types. RESULTS: Individuals living with a smoking spouse were less likely to quit (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.72;0.83]) and more likely to relapse (OR 1.47 [95% CI 1.28;1.69]) compared to those living with nonsmoking spouses. Subsequently, the proportion of smokers living with other smoking household members increased by 15% between 2011 and 2019. A 10-year forecast using the smoking cessation and relapse models predicts that, on average, smokers living with nonsmokers will reduce by 43%, while those living alone or with a smoking partner will only reduce by 26% and 28% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, those who are still smoking are more likely to live with other smokers. Therefore, the current cohort of smokers is increasingly less likely to quit and more likely to relapse. Smoking projection models that fail to account for this dynamic risk may overstate the downstream health benefits and health cost savings. Interventions that encourage smoking cessation at the household level, particularly for spouses, may assist individuals to quit and abstain from smoking. IMPLICATIONS: The current and future paradigm shift in the smoking environment suggests that smoking cessation and relapse prevention policies should consider household structure. Policies designed to affect smoking at the household level are likely to be particularly effective. When estimating the long-term benefits of current smoking policies intrahousehold smoking behavior needs to be considered.

Inequity in smoking cessation clinical trials testing pharmacotherapies: exclusion of smokers with mental health disorders.

OBJECTIVES: People suffering from mental health disorder (MHDs) are often under-represented in clinical research though the reasons for their exclusion are rarely recorded. As they have higher rates of smoking and nicotine dependence, it is crucial that they are adequately represented in clinical trials of established pharmacotherapy interventions for smoking cessation. This review aims to examine the practice of excluding smokers with MHDs and reasons for such exclusion in clinical trials evaluating pharmacotherapy treatments for smoking cessation. DATA SOURCE: The Cochrane database of systematic reviews was searched until September 2020 for reviews on smoking cessation using pharmacotherapies. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) within the selected Cochrane reviews were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Conducted by one author and independently verified by three authors. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 279 RCTs from 13 Cochrane reviews. Of all studies, 51 (18.3%) explicitly excluded participants with any MHDs, 152 (54.5%) conditionally excluded based on certain MHD criteria and 76 (27.2%) provided insufficient information to ascertain either inclusion or exclusion. Studies of antidepressant medications used for smoking cessation were found to be 3.33 times more likely (95% CI 1.38 to 8.01, p=0.007) to conditionally exclude smokers with MHDs than explicitly exclude compared with studies of nicotine replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: Smokers with MHDs are not sufficiently represented in RCTs examining the safety and effectiveness of smoking cessation medications. Greater access to clinical trial participation needs to be facilitated for this group to better address access to appropriate pharmacotherapeutic interventions in this vulnerable population.

Study protocol of the Our Futures Vaping Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based eHealth intervention to prevent e-cigarette use among adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Effective and scalable prevention approaches are urgently needed to address the rapidly increasing rates of e-cigarette use among adolescents. School-based eHealth interventions can be an efficient, effective, and economical approach, yet there are none targeting e-cigarettes within Australia. This paper describes the protocol of the OurFutures Vaping Trial which aims to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the first school-based eHealth intervention targeting e-cigarettes in Australia. METHODS: A two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted among Year 7 and 8 students (aged 12-14 years) in 42 secondary schools across New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, Australia. Using stratified block randomisation, schools will be assigned to either the OurFutures Vaping Program intervention group or an active control group (health education as usual). The intervention consists of four web-based cartoon lessons and accompanying activities delivered during health education over a four-week period. Whilst primarily focused on e-cigarette use, the program simultaneously addresses tobacco cigarette use. Students will complete online self-report surveys at baseline, post-intervention, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-months after baseline. The primary outcome is the uptake of e-cigarette use at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the uptake of tobacco smoking, frequency/quantity of e-cigarettes use and tobacco smoking, intentions to use e-cigarettes/tobacco cigarettes, knowledge about e-cigarettes/tobacco cigarettes, motives and attitudes relating to e-cigarettes, self-efficacy to resist peer pressure and refuse e-cigarettes, mental health, quality of life, and resource utilisation. Generalized mixed effects regression will investigate whether receiving the intervention reduces the likelihood of primary and secondary outcomes. Cost-effectiveness and the effect on primary and secondary outcomes will also be examined over the longer-term. DISCUSSION: If effective, the intervention will be readily accessible to schools via the OurFutures platform and has the potential to make substantial health and economic impact. Without such intervention, young Australians will be the first generation to use nicotine at higher rates than previous generations, thereby undoing decades of effective tobacco control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12623000022662; date registered: 10/01/2023).

A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy.

BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes are commonly used in attempts to stop smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their effectiveness as compared with that of nicotine products approved as smoking-cessation treatments. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults attending U.K. National Health Service stop-smoking services to either nicotine-replacement products of their choice, including product combinations, provided for up to 3 months, or an e-cigarette starter pack (a second-generation refillable e-cigarette with one bottle of nicotine e-liquid [18 mg per milliliter]), with a recommendation to purchase further e-liquids of the flavor and strength of their choice. Treatment included weekly behavioral support for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained abstinence for 1 year, which was validated biochemically at the final visit. Participants who were lost to follow-up or did not provide biochemical validation were considered to not be abstinent. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported treatment usage and respiratory symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 886 participants underwent randomization. The 1-year abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group, as compared with 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 2.58; P<0.001). Among participants with 1-year abstinence, those in the e-cigarette group were more likely than those in the nicotine-replacement group to use their assigned product at 52 weeks (80% [63 of 79 participants] vs. 9% [4 of 44 participants]). Overall, throat or mouth irritation was reported more frequently in the e-cigarette group (65.3%, vs. 51.2% in the nicotine-replacement group) and nausea more frequently in the nicotine-replacement group (37.9%, vs. 31.3% in the e-cigarette group). The e-cigarette group reported greater declines in the incidence of cough and phlegm production from baseline to 52 weeks than did the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk for cough, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9; relative risk for phlegm, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of wheezing or shortness of breath. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes were more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy, when both products were accompanied by behavioral support. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and Cancer Research UK; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60477608 .).

Longer-term use of electronic cigarettes when provided as a stop smoking aid: Systematic review with meta-analyses.

Moderate certainty evidence supports use of nicotine electronic cigarettes to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. However, there is less certainty regarding how long people continue to use e-cigarettes after smoking cessation attempts. We set out to synthesise data on the proportion of people still using e-cigarettes or other study products at 6 months or longer in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. We updated Cochrane searches (November 2021). For the first time, we meta-analysed prevalence of continued e-cigarette use among individuals allocated to e-cigarette conditions, and among those individuals who had successfully quit smoking. We updated meta-analyses comparing proportions continuing product use among individuals allocated to use nicotine e-cigarettes and other treatments. We included 19 studies (n = 7787). The pooled prevalence of continued e-cigarette use at 6 months or longer was 54% (95% CI: 46% to 61%, I2 86%, N = 1482) in participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions. Of participants who had quit combustible cigarettes overall 70% were still using e-cigarettes at six months or longer (95% CI: 53% to 82%, I2 73%, N = 215). Heterogeneity in direction of effect precluded meta-analysis comparing long-term use of nicotine e-cigarettes with NRT. More people were using nicotine e-cigarettes at longest follow-up compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, but CIs included no difference (risk ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.41, n = 601). The levels of continued e-cigarette use observed may reflect the success of e-cigarettes as a quitting tool. Further research is needed to establish drivers of variation in and implications of continued use of e-cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Effectiveness of Varenicline Versus Combination Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation: One-Year Outcomes in a Smoking Cessation Clinic in Taiwan.

INTRODUCTION: Varenicline and combination nicotine replacement treatment (cNRT) have been recommended as the most effective pharmacotherapies, with equal abstinence rate for smoking cessation in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials, but data from real-world long-term follow-up studies are rare. This study aimed to compare the 12-month sustained abstinence rates of smokers using varenicline versus cNRT in their quit attempt. METHODS: A total of 3569 smokers were recruited via the Department of Family Medicine outpatient department at Kaohsiung Veteran General Hospital between June 2013 and March 2019. Participants received counseling from a physician and chose either varenicline (N = 2870) or cNRT (N = 699) for smoking cessation. Both varenicline and cNRT users could receive a free 8-week supply and eight clinic visits over 90 days. Participants were followed-up by telephone at 12, 24, and 52 weeks from first visit. The primary outcome measure of the study was self-reported sustained abstinence up to 52 weeks. RESULTS: Varenicline users had a significantly higher sustained abstinence rate at weeks 12-52, adjusted for baseline variables (15.2% vs 10.3%, p = .001; adjusted odds ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-2.05). Other significant predictors of 52 weeks sustained abstinence were being male, having a higher income, attending more clinical visits, and have lower nicotine dependence. CONCLUSION: Varenicline appears to have higher sustained abstinence rates to 52 weeks compared with cNRT, in a smoking cessation clinic where smokers can choose their medication option. IMPLICATIONS: Network meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that varenicline and cNRT are similarly effective for smoking cessation. This study shows that 1-year sustained abstinence rates were significantly higher among smokers using varenicline, compared with smokers using cNRT, when used as part of a structured smoking cessation program. These findings are highly relevant to policy makers and service providers to help determine provision of smoking cessation treatment.

The Time Course of Compensatory Puffing With an Electronic Cigarette: Secondary Analysis of Real-World Puffing Data With High and Low Nicotine Concentration Under Fixed and Adjustable Power Settings.

INTRODUCTION: In a secondary analysis of our published data demonstrating compensatory vaping behavior (increased puff number, puff duration, and device power) with e-cigarettes refilled with low versus high nicotine concentration e-liquid, here we examine 5-day time course over which compensatory behavior occurs under fixed and adjustable power settings. AIMS AND METHODS: Nineteen experienced vapers (37.90 ± 10.66 years, eight females) vaped ad libitum for 5 consecutive days under four counterbalanced conditions (ie, 20 days in total): (1) low nicotine (6 mg/mL)/fixed power (4.0 V/10 W); (2) low nicotine/adjustable power; (3) high nicotine (18 mg/mL)/fixed power; (4) high nicotine/adjustable power (at 1.6 Ohm). Puff number, puff duration, and power settings were recorded by the device. For each day, total daily puffing time was calculated by multiplying daily puff number by mean daily puff duration. RESULTS: A significant day × setting interaction revealed that whilst puffing compensation (daily puffing time) continued to increase over 5 days under fixed power, it remained stable when power settings were adjustable. Separate analysis for puff number and puff duration suggested that the puffing compensatory behavior was largely maintained via longer puff duration. CONCLUSIONS: Under fixed power conditions (4.0 V/10 W), vapers appear to compensate for poor nicotine delivery by taking longer puffs and this compensatory puffing appears to be maintained over time. IMPLICATIONS: Studies in smokers suggest that when switching to lower nicotine levels, compensation for poorer nicotine delivery is transient. Our novel findings suggest that vapers show a different pattern of compensation which is influenced by both nicotine strength and device power settings. When power is fixed (4.0 V; 10 W), compensation (via more intensive puffing) appears prolonged, persisting up to 5 days. Under adjustable settings when power is increased, puffing patterns remain stable over time. Implications of such compensatory behaviors for product safety and user satisfaction need further exploration.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Effect of Cytisine vs Varenicline on Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cytisine is more effective than placebo and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. However, cytisine has not been tested against the most effective smoking cessation medication, varenicline, which is associated with adverse events known to lead to discontinuation of therapy. Objective: To examine whether standard cytisine treatment (25 days) was at least as effective as standard varenicline treatment (84 days) for smoking cessation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This noninferiority, open-label randomized clinical trial with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment was undertaken in Australia from November 2017 through May 2019; follow-up was completed in January 2020. A total of 1452 Australian adult daily smokers willing to make a quit attempt were included. Data collection was conducted primarily by computer-assisted telephone interview, but there was an in-person visit to validate the primary outcome. Interventions: Treatments were provided in accordance with the manufacturers' recommended dosage: cytisine (n = 725), 1.5-mg capsules taken 6 times daily initially then gradually reduced over the 25-day course; varenicline (n = 727), 0.5-mg tablets titrated to 1 mg twice daily for 84 days (12 weeks). All participants were offered referral to standard telephone behavioral support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 6-month continuous abstinence verified using a carbon monoxide breath test at 7-month follow-up. The noninferiority margin was set at 5% and the 1-sided significance threshold was set at .025. Results: Among 1452 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 42.9 [12.7] years; 742 [51.1%] women), 1108 (76.3%) completed the trial. Verified 6-month continuous abstinence rates were 11.7% for the cytisine group and 13.3% for the varenicline group (risk difference, -1.62% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -5.02% to ∞]; P = .03 for noninferiority). Self-reported adverse events occurred less frequently in the cytisine group (997 events among 482 participants) compared with the varenicline group (1206 events among 510 participants) and the incident rate ratio was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: Among daily smokers willing to quit, cytisine treatment for 25 days, compared with varenicline treatment for 84 days, failed to demonstrate noninferiority regarding smoking cessation. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001654448.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic cigarettes: A narrative review of the implications for the pediatric anesthesiologist.

The use of electronic cigarettes (EC) is increasing and the number of EC publications is rapidly growing. While some health organizations focus on the harmful effects of using EC (vaping), others promote the benefits of ECs as a less harmful alternative to smoking tobacco. There is concern that vaping might have adverse respiratory consequences for pediatric patients facing anesthesia and intensive care. This narrative review summarizes current knowledge and recommendations regarding the risks of EC relevant to the anesthesiologist and the use of ECs as a step-down option from tobacco. We provide guidance on the management of vaping patients in the perioperative period.

Mobile phone text messaging and app-based interventions for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Mobile phone-based smoking cessation support (mCessation) offers the opportunity to provide behavioural support to those who cannot or do not want face-to-face support. In addition, mCessation can be automated and therefore provided affordably even in resource-poor settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation rates in people who smoke. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the most recent searches was 29 October 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants were smokers of any age. Eligible interventions were those testing any type of predominantly mobile phone-based programme (such as text messages (or smartphone app) for smoking cessation. We included randomised controlled trials with smoking cessation outcomes reported at at least six-month follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed both study eligibility checks and data extraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analyses of the most stringent measures of abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method, pooling studies with similar interventions and similar comparators to calculate risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted analyses including all randomised (with dropouts counted as still smoking) and complete cases only. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 26 studies (33,849 participants). Overall, we judged 13 studies to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. Settings and recruitment procedures varied across studies, but most studies were conducted in high-income countries. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that automated text messaging interventions were more effective than minimal smoking cessation support (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.00; I2 = 71%; 13 studies, 14,133 participants). There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that text messaging added to other smoking cessation interventions was more effective than the other smoking cessation interventions alone (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; I2 = 0%, 4 studies, 997 participants). Two studies comparing text messaging with other smoking cessation interventions, and three studies comparing high- and low-intensity messaging, did not show significant differences between groups (RR 0.92 95% CI 0.61 to 1.40; I2 = 27%; 2 studies, 2238 participants; and RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 12,985 participants, respectively) but confidence intervals were wide in the former comparison. Five studies compared a smoking cessation smartphone app with lower-intensity smoking cessation support (either a lower-intensity app or non-app minimal support). We pooled the evidence and deemed it to be of very low certainty due to inconsistency and serious imprecision. It provided no evidence that smartphone apps improved the likelihood of smoking cessation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; I2 = 59%; 5 studies, 3079 participants). Other smartphone apps tested differed from the apps included in the analysis, as two used contingency management and one combined text messaging with an app, and so we did not pool them. Using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised did not substantially alter the findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that automated text message-based smoking cessation interventions result in greater quit rates than minimal smoking cessation support. There is moderate-certainty evidence of the benefit of text messaging interventions in addition to other smoking cessation support in comparison with that smoking cessation support alone. The evidence comparing smartphone apps with less intensive support was of very low certainty, and more randomised controlled trials are needed to test these interventions.

Hypnotherapy for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Hypnotherapy is widely promoted as a method for aiding smoking cessation. It is intended to act on underlying impulses to weaken the desire to smoke, or strengthen the will to stop. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of hypnotherapy for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), using the terms "smoking cessation" and "hypnotherapy" or "hypnosis", with no restrictions on language or publication date. The most recent search was performed on 18 July 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized controlled trials that recruited people who smoked and implemented a hypnotherapy intervention for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, or with any other therapeutic interventions. Trials were required to report smoking cessation rates at least six months after the beginning of treatment. Study eligibility was determined by at least two review authors, independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted data on participant characteristics, the type and duration of hypnotherapy, the nature of the control group, smoking status, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. These authors also independently assessed the quality of the included studies. In undertaking this work, we used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated abstinence rates where available. Those lost to follow-up were considered to still be smoking. We summarized effects as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. We also noted any adverse events reported. MAIN RESULTS: We included three new trials in this update, which brings the total to 14 included studies that compared hypnotherapy with 22 different control interventions. The studies included a total of 1926 participants. Studies were diverse and a single meta-analysis was not possible. We judged only one study to be at low risk of bias overall; we judged 10 studies to be at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk. Studies did not provide reliable evidence of a greater benefit from hypnotherapy compared with other interventions or no treatment for smoking cessation. Most individual studies did not find statistically significant differences in quit rates after six months or longer, and studies that did detect differences typically had methodological limitations.Pooling small groups of relatively comparable studies did not provide reliable evidence for a specific effect of hypnotherapy relative to controls. There was low certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, that showed no statistically significant difference between hypnotherapy and attention-matched behavioural treatments (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.61; I2 = 36%; 6 studies, 957 participants). Results were similarly imprecise, and also limited by risk of bias, when comparing hypnotherapy to intensive behavioural interventions (not matched for contact time) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 211 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results from one small study (40 participants) detected a statistically significant benefit of hypnotherapy compared to no intervention (RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.18 to 305.88), but this evidence was judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision. No significant differences were detected in comparisons of hypnotherapy with brief behavioural interventions (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.69; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 269 participants), rapid/focused smoking (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.33; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 54 participants), and pharmacotherapies (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.20; I2 = 5%; 2 studies, 197 participants). When hypnotherapy was evaluated as an adjunct to other treatments, the pooled result from five studies showed a statistically significant benefit in favour of hypnotherapy (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.35; I² = 62%; 224 participants); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to the high risk of bias across studies (four had a high risk or bias, one had an unclear risk), and substantial statistical heterogeneity.Most studies did not provide information on whether data specifically relating to adverse events were collected, and whether or not any adverse events occurred. One study that did collect such data did not find a statistically significant difference in the adverse event 'index' between hypnotherapy and relaxation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether hypnotherapy is more effective for smoking cessation than other forms of behavioural support or unassisted quitting. If a benefit is present, current evidence suggests the benefit is small at most. There is very little evidence on whether hypnotherapy causes adverse effects, but the existing data show no evidence that it does. Further large, high-quality randomized controlled trials, and more comprehensive assessments of safety, are needed on this topic.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a task-based weight management group programme.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a rising global threat to health and a major contributor to health inequalities. Weight management programmes that are effective, economical and reach underprivileged groups are needed. We examined whether a multi-modal group intervention structured to cater for clients from disadvantaged communities (Weight Action Programme; WAP) has better one-year outcomes than a primary care standard weight management intervention delivered by practice nurses (PNI). METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, 330 obese adults were recruited from general practices in London and allocated (2:1) to WAP (N = 221) delivered over eight weekly group sessions or PNI (N = 109) who received four sessions over eight weeks. Both interventions covered diet, physical activity and self-monitoring. The primary outcome was the change in weight from baseline at 12 months. To indicate value to the NHS, a cost effectiveness analysis estimated group differences in cost and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) related to WAP. RESULTS: Participants were recruited from September 2012 to January 2014 with follow-up completed in February 2015. Most participants were not in paid employment and 60% were from ethnic minorities. 88% of participants in each study arm provided at least one recorded outcome and were included in the primary analysis. Compared with the PNI, WAP was associated with greater weight loss overall (- 4·2 kg vs. - 2·3 kg; difference = - 1·9 kg, 95% CI: -3·7 to - 0·1; P = 0·04) and was more likely to generate a weight loss of at least 5% at 12 months (41% vs. 27%, OR = 14·61 95% CI: 2·32 to 91·96, P = 0·004). With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £7742/QALY, WAP would be considered highly cost effective compared to PNI. CONCLUSIONS: The task-based programme evaluated in this study can provide a template for an effective and economical approach to weight management that can reach clients from disadvantaged communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN45820471 . Registered 12/10/2012 (retrospectively registered).

Effectiveness of training general practitioners to improve the implementation of brief stop-smoking advice in German primary care: study protocol of a pragmatic, 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (the ABCII trial).

BACKGROUND: The German clinical guideline on tobacco addiction recommends that general practitioners (GPs) provide brief stop-smoking advice to their patients according to the "5A" or the much briefer "ABC" method, but its implementation is insufficient. A lack of training is one barrier for GPs to provide such advice. Moreover, the respective effectiveness of a 5A or ABC training regarding subsequent delivery of stop-smoking advice has not been investigated. We developed a training for GPs according to both methods, and conducted a pilot study with process evaluation to optimize the trainings according to the needs of GPs. This study aims at evaluating the effectiveness of both trainings. METHODS: A pragmatic 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with a pre-post data collection will be conducted in 48 GP practices in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). GPs will be randomised to receive a 3.5-h-training in delivering either 5A or ABC, including peer coaching and intensive role plays with professional actors. The patient-reported primary outcome (receipt of GP advice to quit: yes/no) and secondary outcomes (recommendation rates of smoking cessation treatments, group comparison (5A versus ABC): receipt of GP advice to quit) will be collected in smoking patients routinely consulting their GP within 4 weeks prior, and 4 weeks following the training. Additional secondary outcomes will be collected at 4, 12 and 26 weeks following the consultation: use of cessation treatments during the last quit attempt (if so) since the GP consultation, and point-prevalence abstinence rates. The primary data analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with random effects for the cluster variable. DISCUSSION: If the training increases the rates of delivery of stop-smoking advice, it would offer a low-threshold strategy for the guideline implementation in German primary care. Should one method prove superior, a more specific guideline recommendation can be proposed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00012786); registered on 22th August 2017, prior to the first patient in.

Changes in Alcohol Consumption During a Stop-Smoking Attempt and Differences Between Smokers Using Nicotine Replacement and Smokers Using Varenicline.

Introduction: Little is known about effects of smoking cessation on alcohol consumption. Varenicline reduces enjoyment of smoking and cigarette consumption and may also reduce enjoyment and consumption of alcohol. We conducted the first prospective examination of the effects of stopping smoking on alcohol enjoyment and consumption and compared clients using varenicline and nicotine replacement treatment (NRT). Methods: Audit of records from clients undergoing routine smoking cessation treatment in three stop-smoking services in London, United Kingdom. The sample comprised smokers who consume alcohol and underwent smoking cessation treatment with either varenicline (N = 230) or NRT (N = 62). Alcohol enjoyment and consumption were reported before and on the target quit day (TQD) and 1 and 4 weeks post-TQD. Results: Participants reduced their alcohol consumption in week 1 of their quit attempt (15.0-12.7 units per/week, p = .001).In heavy drinkers, the change remained significant at 4 weeks (32.2-24.8 units per/week, p = .004). The type of medication used had no significant impact on the change. Smokers treated with varenicline versus NRT were more likely to report reduced enjoyment of alcohol on TQD (20% vs. 10%, respectively, p < .001) and at 4 weeks post-TQD (20% vs. 6%, respectively, p = .014). Results were similar for abstainers and those who did not manage to stop smoking. Conclusion: Making a stop-smoking attempt is accompanied by a reduction in drinking. The finding has implications for policies concerned with effects of stopping smoking on alcohol use. Varenicline may affect enjoyment of drinking, but its potential to alter drinking behavior is small. Implications: The finding that smokers making a quit attempt reduce their alcohol consumption has practical implications for treatment providers who are concerned about the possible effects of smoking cessation on alcohol drinking. Although varenicline may reduce alcohol enjoyment compared to NRT, it does not appear to have a significant impact on alcohol consumption.