Safety of e-cigarettes and nicotine patches as stop-smoking aids in pregnancy: Secondary analysis of the Pregnancy Trial of E-cigarettes and Patches (PREP) randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine the safety of e-cigarettes (EC) and nicotine patches (NRT) when used to help pregnant smokers quit. DESIGN: A recent trial of EC versus NRT reported safety outcomes in the randomized arms. We conducted a further analysis based on product use. SETTING: Twenty-three hospitals in England and a stop-smoking service in Scotland took part. PARTICIPANTS: The participants comprised 1140 pregnant smokers. INTERVENTIONS: We compared women using and not using EC and NRT regularly during pregnancy. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements included nicotine intake compared with baseline, birth weight, other pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal respiratory symptoms and relapse in early abstainers. FINDINGS: Use of EC was more common than use of NRT (47.3% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001). Women who stopped smoking (abstainers) and used EC at the end-of-pregnancy (EOP) reduced their salivary cotinine by 45% [49.3 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -79.8 to -10]. Only one abstainer used NRT at EOP. In dual users, cotinine increased by 19% (24 ng/ml, 95% CI = 3.5-68). In women reporting a reduction of at least 50% in cigarette consumption, cotinine levels increased by 10% in those using nicotine products and by 9% in those who did not. Birth weights in dual users and exclusive smokers were the same (3.1 kg). Birth weight in abstainers using either nicotine product was higher than in smokers [3.3 kg, standard deviation (SD) = 0.7] versus 3.1 kg, SD = 0.6; difference = 0.15 kg, 95% CI = 0.05-0.25) and not different from abstainers not using nicotine products (3.1 kg, SD = 0.8). Abstainers and smokers using nicotine products had no worse pregnancy outcomes or more adverse events than abstainers and smokers not using them. EC users reported more improvements than non-users in cough [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37-0.93] and phlegm (aRR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.31-0.92), controlling for smoking status. EC or NRT use had no association with relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Regular use of e-cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes.

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.

Electronic cigarettes versus nicotine patches for smoking cessation in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial.

Nicotine replacement therapy, in the form of nicotine patches, is commonly offered to pregnant women who smoke to help them to stop smoking, but this approach has limited efficacy in this population. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are also used by pregnant women who smoke but their safety and efficacy in pregnancy are unknown. Here, we report the results of a randomized controlled trial in 1,140 participants comparing refillable e-cigarettes with nicotine patches. Pregnant women who smoked were randomized to e-cigarettes (n = 569) or nicotine patches (n = 571). In the unadjusted analysis of the primary outcome, validated prolonged quit rates at the end of pregnancy in the two study arms were not significantly different (6.8% versus 4.4% in the e-cigarette and patch arms, respectively; relative risk (RR) = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.95-2.53, P = 0.08). However, some participants in the nicotine patch group also used e-cigarettes during the study. In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding abstinent participants who used non-allocated products, e-cigarettes were more effective than patches (6.8% versus 3.6%; RR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.14-3.26, P = 0.02). Safety outcomes included adverse events and maternal and birth outcomes. The safety profile was found to be similar for both study products, however, low birthweight (<2,500 g) was less frequent in the e-cigarette arm (14.8% versus 9.6%; RR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.47-0.90, P = 0.01). Other adverse events and birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms. E-cigarettes might help women who are pregnant to stop smoking, and their safety for use in pregnancy is similar to that of nicotine patches. ISRCTN62025374.

A systematic review of speech, language and communication interventions for children with Down syndrome from 0 to 6 years.

BACKGROUND: Speech and language acquisition can be a challenge for young children with Down syndrome (DS), and while early intervention is important, we do not know what early interventions exist and how effective they may be. AIMS: To systematically review existing early speech, language and communication interventions for young children with DS from birth up to 6 years, and to investigate their effectiveness in improving speech, language and communication outcomes in children with DS. Other outcomes are changes in parental behaviour and their responsiveness METHODS & PROCEDURES: We conducted a systematic search of relevant electronic databases to identify early intervention studies targeting speech, language and communication outcomes in children with DS published up to May 2020. A total of 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria were synthesized and appraised for quality using the PEDro-P scale. There were a total of 242 children. We identified three types of intervention: communication training and responsive teaching, early stimulation programme, and dialectic-didactic approach. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: The findings from nine out of the 11 studies reported positive outcomes for children's language and communication up to 18 months following the intervention. All nine studies reported interventions that were co-delivered by parents and clinicians. However, there was also a de-accelerated growth in requesting behaviours in the intervention group reported by one study as well as a case of no improvement for the intervention group. Three studies provided some evidence of improvements to parent outcomes, such as increased parental language input and increased responsiveness. However, there was a moderate to high risk of bias for all studies included. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review suggest that interventions that have high dosage, focus on language and communication training within a naturalistic setting, and are co-delivered by parents and clinicians/researchers may have the potential to provide positive outcomes for children with DS between 0 and 6 years of age. Due to the limited number of studies, limited heterogeneous data and the moderate to high risk of bias across studies, there is an urgent need for higher quality intervention studies in the field to build the evidence base. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Speech and language acquisition is usually delayed in children with DS, yet there are currently no standard interventions for children under 6. A number of research-based interventions exist in the literature, yet it is unknown how effective these are. What this study adds to existing knowledge This is the first systematic review that specifically and exclusively focuses on parent- and non-parent-mediated speech, language and communication interventions for children with DS between 0 and 6 years of age. It complements three existing recent reviews, each of which has a slightly different focus. The previously published reviews have covered only parent-mediated interventions, excluding interventions not mediated by parents, have reviewed interventions including children and adults, without any mention of what early interventions may be like or how effective these may be for young children with DS, have not always assessed risk of bias or have focused specifically on language interventions excluding those focusing on speech articulation or pre-linguistic skills. The findings from the current review suggest that interventions that have high dosage focus on language and communication training within a naturalistic setting and are co-delivered by parents and clinicians/researchers may have the potential to provide positive outcomes for children with Diwn syndrome from 0 to 6. We acknowledge that the current evidence base comes from studies with moderate to high risk of bias, hence our conclusions are not definitive. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Speech and language therapists will have synthesized information and a quick reference point on what type of interventions exist for children with DS under the age of 6, and evidence of which intervention approaches may be promising in terms of providing positive outcomes. However, it is acknowledged that, due to the limited number of studies and the moderate to high risk of bias inherent in the evidence, there is an urgent need for higher quality intervention studies in the field to build the evidence base.

The ASCEND study: protocol for a feasibility study to evaluate an early social communication intervention for young children with Down syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Down syndrome is the most common cause of learning disability, affecting approximately 1 in every 700 babies. Children with Down syndrome have particular difficulties with speech and language. This makes it challenging for them to participate fully in life, access healthcare services and educational opportunities. Improving the language skills of young children with Down syndrome is vital for their future social and emotional well-being and behaviour, and consequently contribution to society. As Down syndrome is detected before or at birth, we can provide support from early on. There are currently no standard interventions for improving the language skills of children with Down syndrome under the age of 36 months. Evidence suggests that early parent-based interventions may be effective in improving language outcomes. In partnership with parents and speech and language therapists, we have co-developed an intervention focusing on early social communication skills and our preliminary work shows that it can lead to better language in children with Down syndrome. Our aim is to carry out a feasibility study which will inform a future pilot/full trial to test whether the intervention is effective in improving language skills before children with Down syndrome start school. METHODS: This is a two-arm feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), with 1:1 randomisation stratified by trial site comparing the intervention (plus standard NHS speech and language therapy) with no intervention (standard NHS speech and language therapy only). We aim to recruit between 25 and 30 children with Down syndrome aged between 11 and 36 months. Sites are defined by the geographical boundaries of three National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. Recruitment is from NHS Speech and Language Therapist caseloads within the 3 Trusts, and self-referral. In the intervention arm, parents/guardians will receive brief training on the parent-based intervention and a manual to follow with their child for 10 weeks. The children's language and early communication skills and family health outcomes will be assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline, post-intervention and 6 month follow-up. Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews will explore the acceptability of the intervention to parents and SLTs. DISCUSSION: The feasibility study's outcomes will determine whether it would be viable to progress to a full-trial and whether adjustments need to made to the procedures, data collection methods, intervention delivery and the intensity of support needed. We want to assess whether our early intervention can be delivered and rolled out through NHS Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) Services. We anticipate that NHS SLT Services will need to make ongoing changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic, so it is likely that we will need to make adjustments for the definitive trial. We will also calculate descriptive statistics of the language outcome measure which we will use for any future sample size calculation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13902755. Registered on 25 August 2020. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13902755.

Do Infants With Down Syndrome Show an Early Receptive Language Advantage?

Purpose The study explored longitudinally the course of vocabulary and general language development in a group of infants with Down syndrome (DS) compared to a group of typically developing (TD) infants matched on nonverbal mental ability (NVMA). Method We compared the vocabulary and general language trajectories of the two groups in two ways: (a) at three time points during a 12-month period and (b) at two time points when the groups had made equal progress in NVMA (a period of 6 months for the TD infants vs. 12 months for the infants with DS). Results The TD group had overtaken the DS group on all general language and vocabulary measures by the end of the 12-month period. However, expressive communication and expressive vocabulary were developing at the same rate and level in the two groups when examined over a period in which the two groups were matched in gains in NVMA. Furthermore, the infants with DS showed a receptive language advantage over the TD group; this group's auditory comprehension and receptive vocabulary scores were superior to those of the TD group at both time points when NVMA was accounted for. Conclusion The results shed light on the widely reported discrepancy between expressive and receptive language in individuals with DS. Although infants with DS appear to be developing language skills more slowly than chronological age TD peers, when NVMA is taken into account, infants with DS do not have expressive language delays, and they seem to show a receptive language advantage.

How do maternal interaction style and joint attention relate to language development in infants with Down syndrome and typically developing infants?

Down syndrome (DS) is more detrimental to language acquisition compared to other forms of learning disability. It has been shown that early social communication skills are important for language acquisition in the typical population; however few studies have examined the relationship between early social communication and language in DS. The aim of the current study is to compare the relationship between joint attention and concurrent language skills, and maternal interactive style and concurrent language skills in infants with DS and in typically developing (TD) infants matched for mental age. We also investigated if these relationships differ between children with DS and TD children. Twenty-five infants with DS (17-23 months) and 30 TD infants (9-11 months) were assessed on measures of joint attention, maternal interactive style and language. The results indicated a significant positive relationship between responding to joint attention (RJA) and concurrent language for the DS group, and a significant positive relationship between maternal positive expressed emotion (PEEM) and concurrent language for the TD group. We hypothesise that different social-communication factors are associated with language skills in DS, at least between 17 and 23 months of age compared to TD infants of similar non-verbal and general language abilities.